Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Rajesh Kumar Vs. Dte of Education & Sanskriti School | Case No. 186/1031/2018/04/1871-1873 | Dated: 15.04.2019







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,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

1.    Case No. 186/1031/2018/04/1871-1873       Dated: 15.04.2019
In the matter of:

Sh. Rajesh Kumar
M-77, Meteorological Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.                                                 ..…… Complainant
    
Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi, Old Sectt.,
Delhi-110054.                                                   ......…Respondent No. 1

The Principal,
Sanskriti School,
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Marg,
Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi – 110018.                                      ....…..Respondent No. 2

2.    Case No. 187/1031/2018/04/ 1874-1876           

In the matter of:
 
Sh. Naresh Kumar Yadav,
F-6, DMS Colony, Shadipur
West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.                                                 .........Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi, Old Sectt.,
Delhi-110054.                                                       .....…Respondent No. 1

The Principal
Bal Bharti School
Ganga Ram Hospital Marg
New Delhi-110060.                                               ...…Respondent No. 2
   
ORDER
Case No. 186/1031/2018/04 — Sh. Rajesh Kumar vide his email dated 22.03.2018 and letter dated 08.4.2018 submitted that he applied for admission of his daughter Ms. Abharika Singh, a person with 65% Cerebral Palsy online through Directorate of Education website in 5 schools namely Sanskriti School, Spring-dales School, Morden School (Humayun Road), DPS R.K. Puram, DPS Mathura Road.  None of the schools admitted her stating that schools were not equipped with the facilities required for children with special needs.  Directorate of Education also did not take any action against the schools.  He requested for intervention of this Court and for instructing the schools to admit his daughter in class I. 
2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 04.04.2018 under the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Act”.  Deputy Director (IEDSS), Department of Education vide letter dated 10.05.2018 informed that matter had been taken up with Sanskriti School as per the request of the complainant and action taken report was also sent to him.  Subsequently, Ms. Abarika Singh was admitted in DPS, Mathura Road.  
3.       Case No. 187/1031/2018/04—Sh. Naresh Kumar Yadav, father of Ms. Nancy Yadav, a person with 40% visual impairment vide his email dated 21.03.2018 submitted that he applied online for admission of his daughter in CWSN category against open seats for admission to KG class for academic session 2018-19 in Bal Bharti School, Ganga Ram Hospital Road.  The school did not reply even after contacting them a number of times.  He also applied in the academic session 2017-18.  She was denied admission in both the academic years which is violation of Section 26 of Act and the Directorate of Education circular dated 11.01.2019 and High Court order dated 14.01.2015 in contempt petition.  He requested that necessary action for admission of his daughter in KG class in Bal Bharti School should be taken.
4.       The complaint was taken up with the respondents vide notice dated 06.04.2018 after the complainant submitted a copy of the disability certificate in respect of his daughter. 
5.       Deputy Director Education, Zone-II vide letter dated 08.05.2018 informed that Ms. Nancy Yadav has been granted admission in class KG, Salwan Public School, Rajinder Nagar.
6.       Upon considering the replies and rejoinders, both the cases were tagged and hearings were held on 17.05.2018, 08.06.2018 and 21.06.2018.    
7.       During the course of hearings, respondent no. 1 provided the following information vide letter dated 06.06.2018:
S.No.
Information Sought
Reply
1.
The process of admission of children with disabilities and those with Bench Mark Disabilities from the stage of application for admission to the stage of admission in the schools applied for.
The policy of non denial of admission is followed in Government and Government aided Schools of Directorate of Education, GNCTD.
2.
Whether a child with disability, who applies through single window system, would be able to participate for admission against 25% EWS/DG seats or He/She needs to make a separate application
Yes, he/she has to make a separate application for admission against 25% EWS/DG category.  However Hon’ble LG has approved the proposal to reserve 3% seats for admission of Children with Special Needs (CWSN) in private un-Aided schools within 25% of EWS/DG Category quota earmarked under section 12 (1) (c) of RTE act 2009.  To give effect the approval of Hon’ble LG it is required to issue a notification amending clause 3 (a) of Delhi School Education (free seats for students belonging to economically weaker sections and disadvantaged group).  Order, 2011 published vide notification no. 15(172)/DE/Act/ 2010/69 dated 07/01/2011 as amended up to date.  The draft notification amending the amended clause 3 (a) in line of the approval of Hon’ble LG has already submitted to Law and Justice Department, GNCTD for its vetting on 29.05.2018.  After issue of amended notification fresh applications in the category of CWSN under EWS/DG category shall be invited for the year 2018-19.
3.
Whether a child with Bench Mark Disabilities between the age of 6-8 years shall be ensured admission in a neighbourhood school of his/her choice as required u/s 31 (1) of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Yes, a child with Benchmark disabilities between the age of 6-8 years shall be ensured admission in a neighbourhood Govt. School of his /her choice as required u/s 31 (1) & RPwD Act, 2016.
4.
If a child with Bench Mark disabilities is not able to get admission against 25% of EWS/DG seats as well as 75% open seats Draw of lots and all the sanctioned authorized Number of seats have been filled, how will he/she be ensured his/her right of free education in a neighbourhood schools of his/her choice as mandated by Section 31 of Rights of PWD Act, 2016.
A child with bench mark shall be ensured admission in a neighbourhood Govt. school of his/her choice as required u/s 31 (1) & RPwD Act, 2016.  However in the case of private schools, Delhi Persons with Disabilities Rules 2018 is under process with Social Welfare Department/Nodal department, GNCTD and when notification on this matter is issued it shall be complied with.

8.       Principal, Sanskriti School vide her reply dated 31.05.2018 submitted that the school strictly follows and admits against 25% seats from EWS/CWSN category and has already admitted 29% against the prescribed 25% for the academic year 2018-19 for class 1.  As per the details given in annexure A-1 to the reply, out of 124 children admitted in Nursery, Prep. and Class 1st against EWS Quota, 3% were children with special needs.  As requested by Directorate of Education to allow a seat for the daughter of Sh. Rajesh Kumar in open category, the same is not possible as there is no vacancy.
9.       As per Section 16 of the Act, Education institutions funded or recognized by the Govt. and local authorities are required to provide inclusive education and admit children with disability without discrimination.  Section 31 provides that every child with benchmark disability between the age of 6 to 18 years, shall have the right to free education in a neighbourhood school or in a special school of his choice.  There is no provision in the Act for reservation of seats for children with disabilities in school education.  However, not less than 5% of the seats are to be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in Govt. institutions of higher education and other higher educational institutions receiving aid from the Govt.
10.     The order for reservation of 3% seats for children with disabilities was issued by respondent no. 1 on 23.07.2018.  Thereafter, the names of children with disabilities were forwarded by the Directorate of Education to the concerned schools for admission.  By the time the process commenced for operationalizing the mandate, much of the period of 2018-19 session was over.  The question of any shortfall or improper implementation of the said mandate was also not brought up. Now that the 2018-19 academic session is already over, no directions can be given to the schools for admission at this stage. The respondents must ensure that 3% of the seats are reserved for children with disabilities in Nursery, Pre-Primary/KG and Class-I and they are admitted in the academic session 2019-20.  This Court is confident that Directorate of Education will be monitoring the compliance with their circular dated 11.01.2019.   
11.     The complaints are disposed off.
12.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15th day of April, 2019.     


           (T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities



Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Ms. Himanshi on behalf of Ms. Ishita Saini & Anr Vs. Dte of Education & Anr | Case No. 225/1041/2018/05 /1463-1466 | Dated: 26.03.2019





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. 225/1041/2018/05 /1463-1466                                          Dated: 26.03.2019
Case No. 463/1033/2018/08/1463-1466        

In the matter of:

Ms. Himanshi on behalf of Ms. Ishita Saini,
25, Shanti Vihar,
1st Floor Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092,
New Delhi-110003                                                ……Complainant No. 1

Sh. Ajay Kumar Saini F/o Ms. Ishita Saini
25, Shanti Vihar,
1st Floor, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092                                                        ……Complainant No. 2
                                                Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
New Delhi-110054                                                …..Respondent No. 1

The Principal,
B.V.M School,
Block D, Ram Vihar, AnandVihar,
New Delhi-110092                                                …..Respondent No.2

ORDER

Ms. Himanshi and Sh. Ajay Kumar Saini vide their complaint received on 12.03.2018 and 28.08.2018 respectively, alleged inter-alia that Bhai Parmanand Vidya Mandir detained Ms. Ishita Saini, a child with 40% specific learning disability, in class 9 in academic year 2016-2017 and in 2017-2018, she was given compartment.  She also failed in Mathematics.  In both the complaints, they requested for exemption from Mathematics.  In the complaint of Sh. Saini, it is also submitted that they had given an application for taking up with CBSE for exemption.  However, the school did not send the same to CBSE.  Both the complaints were registered separately and were taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 28.06.2018 and 19.09.2018 respectively.

2.      After receipt of the replies from the respondents, it revealed that Ms. Himanshi and Sh. Ajay Kumar Saini are the parents of Ms. Ishita Saini and both the cases are therefore being disposed of by this order.

3.      Sh. Ajay Pal Singh, Principal of the school vide letter dated 30.07.2018 inter-alia submitted,in terms of CBSE’s Circular no. CBSE/COORD/112233/2016 dated 24.01.2017, the students with visual and hearing impairment, Spastic, Dyslexic, Autistic and candidates with disabilities as defined in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 have the option of studying one compulsory language as against two.This language should be in consonance with the overall spirit of the three language formula prescribed by the Board.  Besides one language, any four of the following subjects are to be offered:

“1:Mathematics, Science, Social Science, another language, Music, painting, Home Science, Foundation of Information Technology, Commerce (Elements of Business), Commerce (Elements of Book Keeping and accountancy), E-Publishing and E-Office (English), E-Publishing and E-Office (Hindi), Information and communication Technology (ICT-166), any one out of Retail (NSQF) and Information Technology (NSQF).”
2:That at present, the followings subjects as referred above are not available in the school for the student of class X:
Another Language, Music painting, Home Science, Foundation of Information Technology, Commerce (Elements of Business), Commerce (Elements of Book Keeping and accountancy), E-Publishing and E-Office (English), E-Publishing and E-Office (Hindi), Information and communication Technology (ICT-166), any one out of Retail (NSQF) and Information Technology (NSQF)”.

4.      It has further been submitted that the position was explained to the parents of Ms. Ishita Saini.  However, they were insisting to choose the subjects which were not available in the school.  DDE-Distt East vide letter dated 27.12.2018 also submitted that the school had already requested CBSE for exemption of Mathematics in the 10th board examination and for providing additional subject in lieu thereof.  Sh. Ajay Kumar Saini, vide his email dated 20.02.2019 informed that the request has been rejected and therefore he wished to withdraw the complaint.  Sh. Ajay Kumar Saini and Sh. A.P. Singh, Principal of the School when contacted, clarified that since the school does not have the alternative subjects that Ms. Ishita Saini has opted for, the CBSE had to reject the request.

5.      While the complaints are disposed of,it is recommended that wide publicity and counselling of the children and the parents should be ensured about the instructions of CBSE from time to time so that a well informed decision is taken by the children about the alternative subject well in time and they do not suffer any disadvantage.  The complainant is also advised to help Ms. Ishita Saini take a decision about the subject in lieu of Mathematics well in time and admit her in a school where the subjects of her choice are available.

4.      Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 25th day of March, 2019.


                                                                                                (T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Virender Singh Vs. Dte of Education & Anr | Case No. 602/1111/2018/11/779-783 | Dated:11.02.2019




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,
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 602/1111/2018/11/779-783                            Dated:11.02.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Virender Singh, Smt. Poonam and
Sh. Omkar Singh
N-34, Naveen Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.                                                          ..…… Complainant
    
Versus
The Director,
Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi, Old Sectt.,
Delhi-110054.                                                         ...…Respondent No. 1

The Principal,
Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya
Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
J-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110018.            ……..Respondent No.2
 
Ms. Sangeeta Chopra,
President
(Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Society),
E-59, Panchsheel Park,
New Delhi – 110017.                                          ……..Respondent No.3

Ms. E. Chaudhary,
Secretary,
Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Society,
J-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110018.           ……..Respondent No.4

Date of hearing:        22.01.2019
   
ORDER

          Sh. Virender Singh, Local Guardian of Ms. Bhawna, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 27.11.2018 submitted that Km. Bhawna, an 11 year old girl is the daughter of his wife’s sister, who lives in Bulandshehar (U.P.).  She was admitted in Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi in Class-I in the year 2012.  On her promotion to Class-VI, she was shifted to Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Vikaspuri, New Delhi.  The society runs schools with hostel for children of Class-I to V at Rajinder Nagar and for children of Class-VI to Class-XII at Vikaspuri.   In August, 2018, the school authorities called them and informed that Km. Bhawna had been expelled from school as-well-as the hostel allegedly for stealing money without giving anything in writing.
2.       The complaint was taken up with respondents vide notice dated 03.12.2018 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’. 
3.       The DDE, Zone-18 vide letter dated 17.12.2018 informed that Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya is a recognized govt. aided school.  Km. Bhawna was expelled from the school and the residential hostel facility on the ground of stealing money/theft.  The Principal of the School, Manager and Chairman of Managing Committee are the sole authority to maintain the school, building, accommodation, hostel facility, recreation and security of girl child.  He sought more time to examine the matter and to submit report after the approval of the competent authority.  As there was no response from the respondent no. 2, a hearing was scheduled on 04.01.2019.
4.       During the hearing, the complainant reiterated his written submissions and added that there was no complaint whatsoever about stealing or any misconduct by Km. Bhawna at Rajinder Nagar School during the past 5 years.  When they were called to the school, they pleaded with the concerned authorities for not expelling Km. Bhawna from the hostel but they did not get any relief.  It is not possible for Bhawna’s parents who live in Bulandshahar to make arrangements for sending her to the school.  It is not possible even for them to make commuting arrangement from Shahdara where they reside.
5.       Representative of Directorate of Education reiterated the written submissions and added that the Chairman and other functionaries of the school were called for meeting in the Dte. of Education to resolve the matter.  While the Principal went for the meeting, the Chairman and other functionaries of the society did not come even after repeated requests.  They have now been requested to indicate a convenient date for a meeting.  He also clarified that the Dte. of Education gives aid only for education of children in the school and not for the hostel. The Department has also not given any licence/permission for running the hostel.  It is the sole responsibility of the society to run and manage the hostel.
6.       Dr. Shamim, HoS submitted that she and Manager of the society have already given their reports to Deputy Director of Education, Zone-18, Vikaspuri in response to his letter dated 17.12.2018.  She submitted copies of letters dated 18.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 sent by the Manager and herself respectively to the Deputy Director of Education, Vikaspuri.  Both of them have opined that Km. Bhawna should be given one more chance as the school and the hostel are for children with visual impairment.  She also clarified that the hostel is being managed by a separate set of functionaries of the society.  She, as the HoS has no role whatsoever in the affairs of the hostel.  As per her knowledge, the hostel is being run and managed with private donations and there is no contribution of Government. 
7.       It was observed from the photocopy of the Daily Class Attendance Register that Km. Bhawna’s name appeared at S.No.5 and she was present upto 6th August, 2018.  Thereafter, she has been shown absent.  The complainant alongwith Km. Bhawna’s father approached all the functionaries of the school and the society to whom they could have access including the Secretary of the Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya Society. They were forced to take away the child.  They also approached Deputy Director of Education, Vikaspuri and Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) but did not succeed in getting the child re-admitted in the hostel.  Her expulsion from the hotel effectively denied her the fundamental right to education for an allegation that had not even been proved.  The parents and the guardians were scared about the safety of the child. 
8.       After hearing the parties, it was observed that Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya Society was an essential party in the matter and therefore President and Secretary of the society were impleaded as Respondents No. 3 & 4 respectively.  They were directed to submit by 17.01.2019 why Km. Bhawna should not be re-admitted in the hostel and her parents/local guardians be informed well in advance so that she could reach hostel on 16.01.2019 and start her classes w.e.f. 17.01.2019 and also submit their version on the complaint dated 27.11.2018 of Sh. Virender Singh, Poonam and Omkar Singh and on the observations of this court alongwith the documents relating to the incident.   
9.       In the Record of Proceedings dated 04.01.2019, it was brought out that Km. Bhawna’s expulsion was prima-facie disproportionate to the alleged mistake inhuman and against the human rights.  It amounted to infringing her right to education under the Constitution and the Act.  The incident could also attract punishment for offences of atrocities under Section 92 of the Act which provides that whoever:-
(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;
(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”
10.     Before the next date of hearing on 22.01.2019, a phone call was received that Km. Bhawna has been admitted in the Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya at Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.  This was confirmed by the complainant when he was contacted.
11.     Although the relief sought by the complainant has been given, yet the way Km. Bhawna was treated by the Managers of Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya calls for soul searching by respondent no. 3 & 4.  The Management functionaries of the society have shown complete disrespect for the human rights and dignity of Km. Bhawna and her parents and the local guardians.  For the sake of argument, even if the theft were proved, the punishment awarded was highly disproportionate to the mistake alleged to have been committed.  An educational institution is expected to set standards of reformist approach rather than being vindictive and intolerant. It is sad to note that the management functionaries of a society and a school set up for girls with blindness have treated a girl child with blindness in such a manner and shown complete insensitivity and disrespect for the authorities of the Education Department by not responding and not complying with their request to attend meetings and have also failed to submit the status report as directed vide RoP dated 07.01.2019 thereby evincing their arrogance and disrespect for the authority created under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 enacted by the Parliament of the country.  This is a serious matter which should be dealt with appropriately and accordingly, the following recommendations are made :
i)             Directorate of Education which is responsible for running the educational institutions in NCT of Delhi and is also providing grant-in-aid for education of children in the school, should issue an advisory/ warning to the management of Rashtriya Virjanand Andh Kanya Vidyalaya for abiding by the rules, regulations and guidelines for running a school/educational institutes.
ii)            The issue of giving license or permitting any individual or organization to run a hostel particularly for children with disabilities should be examined and appropriate norms and guidelines should be framed keeping in view  the issues and the concerns of children with disabilities particularly the girls with disabilities and provide for penalties for non compliance.
iii)          Respondent no. 3 & 4 should note that Section 89 of the Act provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or regulations made thereunder.  Section 92 has provision for punishment for offences of atrocities and Section 93 provides for punishment for failure to furnish information/ documents.  The said sections are reproduced below:
“89. Punishment for contravention of provisions of Act or rules or regulations made thereunder.—Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to `10,000/- and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than `50,000/- but which may extend to `5,00,000/-.
92. Punishment for offences of atrocities.—Whoever,—
(a) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a person with disability in any place within public view;
(b) assaults or uses force to any person with disability with intent to dishonour him or outrage the modesty of a woman with disability;
.....shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
93. Punishment for failure to furnish information.—Whoever, fails to produce any book, account or other documents or to furnish any statement, information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, or direction made or given there under, is duty bound to produce or furnish or to answer any question put in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, or direction made or given thereunder, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to `25,000/- in respect of each offence, and in case of continued failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to `1,000/- for each day, of continued failure or refusal after the date of original order imposing punishment of fine.”
12.     Taking a lenient view of the matter, the action against respondent no. 3 & 4 is not being recommended for contravention of the above provisions of the Act.  They are however, advised to be sensitive, humane and should respect the dignity and honour of a child with disability especially when they are in the business of education of girl children with blindness. 
13.     The complaint is disposed off.
14.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 11th day of February, 2019.     







           (T.D. Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities