Sudeep Kumar Dubey Vs. Principal, J.P.M. Sr. Sec. School for the Blind | Case No. 4/1295/2016-Wel./CD/ 1476-77 | Dated: 11.08.2017

Case Summary

SPECIAL SCHOOLS UNDER THE DISABILITIES ACT; EDUCATION OF CHILDREN & RCI AFFILIATED QUALIFICATION OF TEACHERS APPOINTED IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS – Complainant, a former employee of the respondent organisation filed this complaint wth allegations that respondent school was unauthorizedly  running a Multi Handicapped Unit with blind students of the same school while school has been accorded permission to run 10+2 level school for blind children only. He claimed labeling children with blindness as multi-handicapped infringed their rights. He also claimed violation of the norms of Education Department by not appointing the RCI registered teachers and misused the grant received from more than one source for the students shown in Multi-Handicapped Unit.

Held, respondent school fulfils all parameters of registration under the RPWD Act verified by Department of Social Welfare; Running additional unit to meet the specific needs of students with blindness with additional disabilities is not against the provisions of the Act; Investigations revealed schools was not getting grant from Delhi Govt for the Multi Handicapped Unit, thus there was no substance in the allegations of misuse of funds; No primary stakeholders, i.e. parents of students with disabilities raised any objection to the additional unit nor the complainant who served in the school from 1998 onwards raised any objection ever; the Education Deptt also didn’t specify conditions of RCI qualifications for special schools, though the school had substantial RCI trained teachers on rolls. Court felt the derogatory terms like handicapped need to be avoided which Respondent agreed. Court observed that precious time of all concerned was spent on what appears to be more of a dispute with the administration and less to help protect the rights of children with disabilities in question.  A positive suggestion to the management by the complainant who happens to be a former employee of the umbrella organisation could perhaps have been a better way to bring about improvements, where required. Case disposed off.

Order / Judgement

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/1295/2016-Wel./CD/ 1476-77                          Dated: 11.08.2017 

In the matter of:

Dr. Sudeep Kumar Dubey,

Assistant Professor, DD College of Special Education (V.I)

University of Delhi, L.B.S. Marg,

New Delhi-110003.                                                                        .……… Complainant     

                                                                          Versus

The Principal,

J.P.M.Sr. Sec.School for the Blind,

Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,

New Delhi-110003.                                                                            …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:           04.05.2017 & 20.06.2017

Present                         Dr. Sudeep Kumar Dubey, Complainant alongwith

                                      Sh. Prakash Khandelwal, Advocate.

Sh. K.J. Kuriyan, Principal, JPM Sr. Sec. School on behalf of Respondent.

           

ORDER

                  Dr. Sudeep Kumar Dubey submitted a complaint dated 09.05.2016 to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of India, who forwarded it  to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 15.06.2016 as the issue pertained to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  The complainant  submitted that  J.P.M.Sr. Sec. School for the Blind has been accorded recognition and is given  grant by the Directorate of Education to run classes upto 10+2 for Blind boys.  The school was unauthorizedly  running a Multi Handicapped Unit with students of the same school.  He questioned as to how the students who were primarily admitted to the school catering for single disability could be labelled as multi handicapped and how could they again be with single disability after intervention for certain period. The relief sought is to correct the serious academic lacuna on the part of the school & future of the students should be protected. 

2.               The complainant vide another letter dated 01.06.2016 addressed to the Member Secretary, Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) pointed out that out of 18, only 7 teachers were RCI registered in the said school to take care of educational needs of the visually impaired students.   The Member Secy.,RCI forwarded the said complaint to this Court vide  his  letter dated 23.06.2016.  The complaints were taken up with the respondent vide letters dated 30.06.2016 and 23.01.2017. 

3.               The respondent vide letters dated 14.07.2017 and 03.03.2017 submitted that  the Blind Relief Association (B.R.A.)is running the unit for the blind children with additional learning disability.  The complainant himself is associated with B.R.A. since 02.09.1998 i.e. the date he joined as an Asstt. Teacher in JPM SS School for the Blind and now he is trying to create confusion by falsely alleging that the school is running a multi-handicapped Unit.  The respondent further submitted that  B.R.A. has appointed two qualified teachers to give individualized attention to weaker students till they complete elementary education which is mandatory obligation as per RTE Act 2009.   Based  on the psychological assessment report and in consultation with the parents, the school counsellor and concerned teachers refer  a student to the unit for additional personalized care, training and remedial teaching for a few periods either during the school timings or before /after school hours.  For administrative reasons the B.R.A. has named the Unit as “Unit for Blind Children with Additional / Multiple Disabilities”.  The expression “Multiple Handicapped” is being used for administrative purposes only. The respondent also enclosed the psychological assessment reports from VIMHANS in respect of five children.  The said reports indicate the score of those children of various parameters such as verbal comprehension, freedom from distractibility index and verbal I.Q.  The respondent inter-alia has concluded that the entire effort is to provide additional educational support to the weaker students and remedial teaching under the care of qualified teachers who have been working in the unit since 1994.  Therefore, the allegation that the unit is created just for the benefit of such staff has no base.  But the fact of the matter is that the complainant had taken his students to that unit for teaching practice and has picked up a personal dispute with one staff in that unit.  The respondent also stated that no parent has ever made any complaint against that unit or any teacher and that the concerned parents have consented for the remedial teaching and have cooperated with the teachers. 

4.               The respondent further submitted that the complainant, who has been working in the organisation since September 1998, has never ever raised any objection to the extra care being given to the unit. On certain administrative grounds,  the entry of the complainant in the school premises had been banned, which perhaps was the reason for making baseless complaint against the school. The respondent also submitted that no child has been deprived of his right, rather the school strengthened  to ensure that the rights of children are protected and they are served accordingly. Therefore Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 did not come into force.

5.               In his reply dated 03.03.2017, the respondent submitted the list of 18 teachers alongwith their educational qualifications, Central Rehabilitation Registration (CRR) allotted by the RCI to the registered rehabilitation professionals or the status thereof as the complainant had sought the information about the RCI numbers of the teachers working in the school.

6.               The respondent has responded to the  issues raised by the complainant in his rejoinder dated 26.08.2016.  Many of the issues therein pertained to the internal administrative matters of the school/organisation and disputes between the staff, which is not relevant as far as the issue at hand to be considered by this Court is concerned.

7.               The complainant also submitted a detailed rejoinder dated 26.08.2016.  Thereafter the case was listed for hearing on 04.05.2017. During the hearing, the parties were informed that the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is mandated to perform specific functions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) which had come into force w.e.f. 19^th April, 2017.  Section 80 of the said Act which is relevant to the issue, provides that the State Commissioner shall “inquire, suo motu or otherwise deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and safeguards available to them in respect of matters for which the State Government is the appropriate Government and take up the matter with appropriate authorities for corrective action”.   State Commissioner is also mandated to monitor utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government for  the benefit of persons with disabilities.

8.               In the light of the above provisions, the learned counsel for the complainant was asked to spell out the violation of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, by the respondent and bring out how the respondent has infringed the rights of children with disabilities studying in the school and also to substantiate the allegation of mis-utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government.      
           

9.               The learned counsel stated that the respondent had violated the terms and conditions of Section 51 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 under which the respondent was allowed to run the said school.  Secondly the rights of the children with blindness have also been infringed by labelling them as multi-handicapped.  Further, the respondent has also violated the norms of Education Department by not appointing the RCI registered teachers and misused the grant received from more than one source for the students shown in Multi-Handicapped Unit besides providing wrong information to misguide this Court.

10.            The respondent reiterated his statement as to how the multi handicapped unit was set up in the year 1984 and has evolved over the years.  He stated that the purpose of the said wing is to support children with blindness who lack in academic performance. Since the intention was to support such children with additional qualified staff, the expression used for the unit did not matter much.  Initially the unit was known as `Slow Learner Unit’. Gradually it was changed to ‘Children with Additional Disabilities’ and ‘Children with Learning Disabilities Unit’ and now in record, the expression ‘Children with Multiple Disabilities Unit’ is being used. However, the organisation is willing to change the expression to be in harmony with the existing law based on the reasonable suggestions.

11.            With regard to the norms for qualification of the teachers, the respondent stated that they are following the clause stipulated by the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi.  The copy of registration certification of B.R.A. duly renewed under the  Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2017  has also been submitted with the reply dated 14.07.2016.  Further, the Directorate of Education has not prescribed any clause that required all the teachers in the school to be RCI registered.

12.            After hearing the parties, the complainant was advised to submit a summary of his rejoinder dated 26.08.2016, which  was submitted by him on 08.05.2017 through his Counsel Sh. Prakash Khandelwal.  In the said summary, the complainant has submitted as under:

                  “The respondent has established Multiple Handicapped Unit(MHU) without approval of Directorate of Education, Delhi Govt. and without registration of new unit from the competent authority as envisaged under rule 45(1) DSEAR 1973 and section 51 of PwD Act, 1995.

                  The respondent is labelling visually impaired students with single disability  as Multi handicapped.  They are registered not only in JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind but also in MHU. Thus, the respondent is getting funds for the same group of students from Delhi Govt. and as well as from foreign financers like Military Order of Collar Charitable Foundation, print out of the website is on record in your file.  This is a case of financial embezzlement and corruption.

                  For underscoring the financial implication of the above, the respondent has concealed correct number of students from your goodself.  They are stating that only five students are enrolled in MH Unit whereas at other places they are showing number of such students as 15.  Funds coming for the benefits of students are being siphoned off in favour of vested interests of those who are occupying managerial positions in the organisation. Teachers who are recruited for MHU are most of the time deployed to teach in JPM School. Thus the students of MH Unit are left unattended and their interest is being damaged instead of uplifting their career prospects.

                  A specialized institution i.e. VIMHANS has given assessment reports, in which it is recommended that the students enrolled in MH Unit should be provided social and communication skills.  For enhancing social and communication skills among the said students, they are not allowed to mingle and communicate with other students who possess normal communication skill, they are isolated and left unattended.  Keeping them in a pull out program will further deteriorate their social communication skills and habits.

                  Ms. Meena Dinesh had published her dissertation for her M.Ed Spl.Educ(VI) and in the   dissertation same students have been shown as multiple handicapped.  She has been recruited specially for MH Unit and has given wrong information knowingly about them.  For this her degree of M.Ed may be declared void.  For this your goodself may establish coordination with IGNOU as envisaged in 61(a) of PwD Act, 1995.”

13.            Directorate of Education was requested to intimate the following by 15^th June, 2017:

(i)             Whether JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind is being disbursed any fund by the state government for the benefit of persons with disabilities if so the details of such grant indicating the purpose / items for which such grant is being given.

(ii)           Number of students and the year wise amount of grant for the last three years. 

(iii)          Whether Govt. of NCT of Delhi has prescribed any norms for the teachers in such schools such as teachers pupil ratio and the qualifications of the teachers to take care of educational needs of visually impaired students

14.            Blind Relief Association (BRA) was also advised to submit the status and its version with respect to Multiple Handicapped Unit by 15^th June, 2017.

15.            In compliance of the ROP dated 26.05.2017, Blind Relief Association (BRA) vide letter dated 12^th June, 2017 submitted the status and its version as under:

1.    “Established in 1994. The Blind Relief Association, Delhi has been serving in the field of education, vocational training and rehabilitation of the visually impaired persons since over seven decades.
2.    The Association is duly registered under Section-52 of the PWD Act, 1995 with the Department of Social Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi.
3.    Established and run by the Blind Relief Association, Delhi, Jormal Periwal Memorial (JPM) School for the Blind is a government-aided school under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.
4.    The Multiple Disability Unit is being run by the Association as a special support service since 1986 for the benefit of J.P.M. School Students who require individual attention in academic and co-curricular activities.
5.    In this Unit, remedial classes are held for children referred by the School who are found considerably lagging in studies and require personal grooming.  The Unit provides individualized attention and additional learning support to them.
6.    No Government fund is received by the Blind Relief Association to pay salaries/ honorarium to the staff working in and facilities made available to the Unit.”

16       On the next date of hearing on 20.06.2017, none appeared from the Directorate of Education who were advised to submit the information positively by 17^th June,2017.

17.      Vide letter dated 30.06.2017, Directorate of Education intimated the year wise and head wise details of funds disbursed to JPM Sr. Sec.School for the Blind, which is reproduced below:

S.No.	Head of Account	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17
1.	GIO-General to Aided Schools for free supply of Text Books	124741	118881	134320
2.	GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of Text Books (SCSP)	16800	-	-
3.	GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of Uniform	137700	132900	137600
4.	GIA- General to Aided Schools for free supply of Uniform (SCSP)	16225	-	-
5.	GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of stationery to OBC/Minority students2	46000	87000	-
6.	GIA-General to Aided Schools for free supply of stationery to SC/ST students	18000	35000	-
7.	GIA-General to Aided Schools for Merit scholarship to SC/ST students	8000	28660	-
8.	GIA-General to Aided Schools for Merit scholarship to OBC/min.	46000	86860	-
9.	GIA-General to Aided Schools for Disabled students (IEDSS-CSS) – Reader Allowance	43200	172500 (69 Students)	175000 (70 Students)
10.	GIA- General to Aided Schools for Disabled students (IEDSS-CSS) – Escort Allowance	-	-	210000 (70 Students)

            Directorate of Education also intimated “Directorate of Education  does not have norms for appointment of teachers in such schools.  However, requirement of such aided schools are assessed in the light of guidelines issued by RCI and
Govt of India from time to time. Further, the Directorate of Education is following the educational qualification for Special Educators as has been prescribed by Rehabilitation Council of India.”

18.      It is observed from the registration  certificate given by the Social Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi that the B.R.A. Delhi has been registered under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 with conditions inter-alia requiring B.R.A. to provide the inmates of the institution the wholesome and sufficient food, adequate housing accommodation sanitary in conditions, proper medical care and treatment, facilities and recreation and literary education and vocational or professional training.  I do not see any violation of the conditions of Registration of Certificate as alleged by the complainant in using the expression  ‘Multi-handicapped Unit’ and admission of students to the school and the support being provided in the said multi-handicapped unit. 

19.      Special arrangement for children with visual impairment, who need additional support does not infringe their rights as long as the needed support is being provided to such children.  It is a fact that educational and other services for all the persons with disabilities in our country are neither adequate nor of the desired standard.  In such a scenario, the institutions / organisations in the  government and in the non-government sector that are providing the services, should be encouraged as long as they abide by the law.

20.      It is not to deny the fact that the use of derogatory expressions for addressing any disability or persons with disabilities, etc.  must be avoided.  While  the concept of disability is evolving, organisations working in the sector should keep pace with the changes that are taking place around the world.  Therefore, the respondent may consider substituting the expression for the Unit by an appropriate expression which is in line with the disability specific legislation particularly the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in consultation with the stateholders, especially the primary stakeholder.   The complainant can also give his suggestions.   The respondent was also positive about it during the hearing. In fact,  this court has recommended to the Govt. that the use of expressions ‘handicapped’, ‘mentally retarded’ ‘deaf and dumb’ etc. be discontinued in all official correspondence / Govt. reports and also in all educational institutions / schools and NGOs working in disability sector in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and same be replaced by the expression defined / used in  the Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 vide letter No. F. 5/1662/2017/Wel/CD dated 10.07.2017. In this context, it would be apt to mention that Govt. of India recently changed the name of the “Department of Disability Affairs” as “Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities” as well as the names of the National Institutes for various disabilities  under that Department. There is always scope for improvement. Even best can be better. Therefore the B.R.A.  and JPM Sr. School for the Blind are expected to continue to provide improved services to the children and adults with disabilities. It is also important to note the statement of the respondent that none of the parents of children being provided the support in the Unit, who are the primary stakeholders, have complained.

21.      The complainant raised the issue of financial embezzlement and corruption in his rejoinder citing the contents in the website of MOC Foundation which mentions that in 2003, the trustees of MOC Foundation decided to extend assistance to BRA by providing funds for a special class for blind children with learning disabilities and the trustees continue to support BRA, sponsoring special classes for disabled children, contributing towards operating costs and IT projects, in addition to the ongoing Braille and cassettes sponsorship. Although the complainant had not mentioned about it in his original complaint, yet  keeping in view the scenarios of the allegation, it was decided to look into it.  As the complainant had not given any documents on whether the BRA had received funds for the above purposes from Govt. of NCT of Delhi also, the relevant information was sought  from  Directorate of Education.  From the information supplied by the Directorate of Education vide letter 30.06.2017, it is seen that the Directorate of Education has not provided the funds to JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind for sponsoring special classes for children with disabilities contributing towards operational costs, IT projects and ongoing Braille and cassettes sponsorship for which MOC Foundation is stated to have been providing the funds.  This Court also deputed its Assistant Accounts Officer and a Welfare Officer to check the records of JPM Sr. Sec. School for the Blind in order to see whether the funds being received by the school from Directorate of

Education were being utilised for the purposes these were granted. The said officers inspected the records of the school on 17.07.2017 and after examining the records and documents, they have reported that the JPM School is fully aided by the Education Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  95% of the salary of school staff is paid by Govt. and 5% by the School Management.  All the staff is being paid salary as per the pay commission report and same as the staff of Education Department and the salary is being transferred to their Bank accounts directly by the Education Department.  The Education Department directly transferred the funds to the Bank accounts of the students studying in the school.  They did not find any financial irregularities or embezzlement or any lapse or unauthorised use of funds by the school. It has thus been observed that the allegations have been labelled without proper supporting documents.

22.                        As regards the request of the complainant for declaring M.Ed Spl.Edu.(VI) degree of Ms. Meena Dinesh as void, he may, if advised  approach the concerned University and not  this Court.  It is also noted that the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)  is mandated to regulate the rehabilitation education and the quality of education of rehabilitation professionals and personnel in the country. RCI has not prescribed norms for special schools.

23.                        In the light of the findings stated above after a detailed examination of the complaint vis-a-vis the documents and the inspection, I am constrained to observe that precious time of all concerned was spent on what appears to be more of a dispute with the administration and less to help protect the rights of children with disabilities in question.  A positive suggestion to the management by the complainant who happens to be a former employee of the umbrella organisation could perhaps have been a better way to bring about improvements, where required.  

                  The complaint  is disposed of accordingly.

            Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11^th day of August, 2017.     

           

           (T.D. Dhariyal)

                                        State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities