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
[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. 19th
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 15th 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 15th June, 2017.
15. In
compliance of the ROP dated 26.05.2017, Blind Relief Association (BRA) vide
letter dated 12th 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 17th 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 11th day of August, 2017.
(T.D. Dhariyal)
State
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
