23.02.2010
Present:- Mr. Ashok Aggarwal for the petitioners.
Mr. Shoaib Haider for counsel for the respondent No. 3.
+ W.P. (C.) No. 1128/2010 & C.M. No. 2366/2010
The petitioners are parents of children studying in respondent No. 1 school in various classes. They have filed this writ petition for directions to the respondent No. 1 school to charge Tuition Fee on monthly basis instead of quarterly basis in view of provisions contained in Rules 164-167 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The petitioners have also prayed for interim directions against respondent No.1 school that they should be restrained from striking off the names of their wards from the rolls for non-payment of quarterly fee for the quarter from January to March 2010 as according to them, they have offered monthly fee for the month of January as well as February 2010, which was not accepted by the school. The petitioners have further prayed for interim directions against respondent No. 1 school to issue Admit Cards for CBSE examinations of Class X & XII to all the students and should not withheld the same on the ground of non-payment of quarterly Tutiion Fee.
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Shoaib Haider, appearing for Mr. N. Waziri, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3.
Notice be sent to respondents No. 1 & 2 on filing of process fee and registered A.D. covers for next date. The respondent No. 1 school, in the meanwhile, is restrained from striking off the names of the wards of the petitioners from the rolls and is further directed to issue Admit Cards to all Class X & XII students for CBSE examinations.
Order be served dasti on respondent No.1 school.
List on 23.03.2010
Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
FEBRUARY 23, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL,
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
HC Judgement on Late Fees
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 12223/2009
RAKESH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advs.
versus
RAMJAS SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv. for respondent nos.1 and 2/Ramjas School.
Mr. Shoaib Haider, Adv. for Mr. N. Waziri, Adv. for respondent no.2/GNCTD.
Mr. B.S. Meet, DEO, West A, Director of Education, GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
O R D E R
11.02.2010
1. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondents no.1 and 2 has been charging
late fee @ Rs.10/-, per day, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in
violation of Rule 166 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, framed under Delhi
School Education Act, 1973.
2. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Directorate of Education, has handed over
in Court a communication dated 16.10.2009 addressed by the Education Officer,
Zone 16, to the Manager, Ramjas School (respondent no.1) wherein the school has
been informed that as per Rule 166 only 5 paisa, per day, can be charged as late
fee.
Counsel for respondent no.3 further submits that the writ petition will be
treated as a representation and necessary orders will be passed after giving due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents no.1 and 2
expeditiously.
Respondent no.3 shall be bound by the statement made by their
counsel in Court today.
3. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 Ramjas School submits that till
the representation of the petitioner is decided Delhi School Education Act and
Rules shall be followed with regard to charge of late fee.
4. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, nothing
further survives in the present writ petition, the same is accordingly disposed
of in above terms.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
February 11, 2010
'msr?
W.P.(C) 12223/2009 2/2
38.
$
W.P.(C) 12223/2009
RAKESH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ashok Agarwal and Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advs.
versus
RAMJAS SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv. for respondent nos.1 and 2/Ramjas School.
Mr. Shoaib Haider, Adv. for Mr. N. Waziri, Adv. for respondent no.2/GNCTD.
Mr. B.S. Meet, DEO, West A, Director of Education, GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
O R D E R
11.02.2010
1. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondents no.1 and 2 has been charging
late fee @ Rs.10/-, per day, which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in
violation of Rule 166 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, framed under Delhi
School Education Act, 1973.
2. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Directorate of Education, has handed over
in Court a communication dated 16.10.2009 addressed by the Education Officer,
Zone 16, to the Manager, Ramjas School (respondent no.1) wherein the school has
been informed that as per Rule 166 only 5 paisa, per day, can be charged as late
fee.
Counsel for respondent no.3 further submits that the writ petition will be
treated as a representation and necessary orders will be passed after giving due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondents no.1 and 2
expeditiously.
Respondent no.3 shall be bound by the statement made by their
counsel in Court today.
3. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 Ramjas School submits that till
the representation of the petitioner is decided Delhi School Education Act and
Rules shall be followed with regard to charge of late fee.
4. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, nothing
further survives in the present writ petition, the same is accordingly disposed
of in above terms.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
February 11, 2010
'msr?
W.P.(C) 12223/2009 2/2
38.
$
Monday, February 15, 2010
Late Fee Not More Than 5 Paisa Per Day !!
Now, school can't take late fee more than 5 paisa per day. The HC judgement on late fee is very important. click on the image and see it yourself...
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Demand of National Law on the lines of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009
Demand of National Law on the lines of Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009
All India Parents Association (AIPA)
Agarwal Bhavan, G.T. Road
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054
28.11.2009
Sub: Demand of National Law on the lines of Tamil Nadu
Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009
Dear Parents/Parents Associations,
It is interesting to note that the parents all over the country have raised voices against inaction on the part of the State Governments to check the menace of commercialization of education in unaided private schools. In 1997, on the pretext of 5th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools in Delhi increased fee and other charges ranging from 40% to 400%. This gave rise to unrest amongst the middle class parents and the parents organized themselves against the arbitrary fee hike by the unaided private schools. Needless to say that a PIL was filed in 1997 in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was decided on 30.10.1998 in favour of the parents. The High Court laid down the criteria and guidelines of fixing a reasonable fee structure in an unaided private school. The High Court also held that the Government is not only empowered but also has a duty to regulate fee of such schools to prevent commercialization of education and exploitation of parents/students. The schools filed appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the High Court decision which was dismissed on 27.04.2004. The schools took another opportunity through filing a review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking review of Supreme Court decision of 27.04.2004. Fortunately, the Supreme Court also dismissed the review petition on 07.08.2009.
In 2008, on the pretext of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools all over the country hiked fee and other charges exorbitantly and arbitrarily while Central and State Governments were just mute spectators to the same. This time, the parents all over the country organized themselves to a larger extent and openly protested against the schools and the governments. The parents associations in many part of the country approached their respective High Courts by way of filing writ petitions. The agitation by the parents in some States led the State Governments to issue certain directives to check the arbitrary fee hike. The school managements have filed writ petitions against such directives in their respect State High Courts. A PIL filed by the Parents in Delhi High Court is being heard on day to day basis and is expected to be concluded soon.
Friends, I wish to submit that though the parents are now better aware of their rights qua unaided private schools but the schools are very adamant to continue to exploit the parents and the students by subjecting them to pay unjustified fee and other charges. The State of Tamil Nadu has enacted Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009. Some of the relevant provisions of the said Act are reproduced as under:
Section 3(2) - No fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee under this Act shall be collected for admission of pupils to any standard or course of study in a private school.
Section 5(1) - The Government shall constitute a committee for the purpose of determination of the fee for admission to any Standard or course of study in private schools.
Section 5(2) - The committee shall consist of the following members, namely: -
(a) a retired High Court Judge, nominated
by the Government. -Chairperson;
(b) Director of School Education. -Ex-officio Member;
(c) Director of Matriculation Schools. -Ex-officio Member;
(d) Director of Elementary Education. -Ex-officio Member;
(e) Joint Chief Engineer (Buildings)
Public Works Department. -Ex-officio Member;
(f) Additional Secretary to Government,
School Education Department. -Ex-officio Member
Secretary.”
Section 6 -
(1) The committee shall determine the fee leviable by a private school taking into account the following factors, namely: -
(a) the location of the private school;
(b) the available infrastructure;
(c) the expenditure on administration and maintenance;
(d) the reasonable surplus required for the growth and development of the private school;
(e) any other factors as may be prescribed.
(2) The committee shall on determining the fee leviable by a private school, communicate its decision to the school concerned.
(3) Any private school aggrieved over the decision of the committee shall file their objection before the committee within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the decision of the committee.
(4) The committee shall consider the objection of the private school and pass orders within thirty days from the date of receipt of such objection.
(5) The orders passed by the committee shall be final and binding on the private school for three academic years. At the end of the sad period, the private school would be at liberty to apply for revision.
(6) The committee shall indicate the different heads under which the fee shall be levied.
Section 7 –
The powers and function of the committee shall be: -
(a) to determine the fee to be collected by private school;
(b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of fee in excess of the fee determined by it or fixed by the Government, as the case may be. If the committee, after obtaining the evidence and explanation from the management of the private school or aided school concerned or from the Government school, comes to the conclusion that the private school or the Government school or aided school has collected fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee or fixed by the Government, as the case may be, it shall recommend to the appropriate competent authority for the cancellation of the recognition or approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course of action as it deems fit in respect of the private school or Government school or aided school.
(2) The committee shall have power to: -
(a) require each private school to place before the committee the proposed fee structure of such school with all relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny within such date as may be specified by the committee;
(b) verify whether the fee proposed by the private school is justified and it does not amount to profiteering or charging of exorbitant fee;
(c) approve the fee structure or determine some other fee which can be charged by the private school.
(3) The Committee shall have power to: -
(a) verify whether the fee collected by the school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education; and
(b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of excess fee by a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education; and
(c) to recommend to the Central Board of Secondary Education for disaffiliation of the school, if it comes to a conclusion that the school has collected excess fee.
(4) The committee shall have the power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions, and shall, for the purpose of making any inquiry under this Act, have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely: -
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the receipt of evidence on affidavits;
(d) the issuing of any commission for the examination of witness.
Section 8 - The Government may regulate the maintenance of accounts by the private schools in such manner as may be prescribed.
Section 9 -
(1) Whoever contravenes the provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years.
(2) The person convicted under this section shall refund to the pupil from whom the excess fee was collected in contravention of this Act, such excess fee.
It appears that the Tamil Nadu Act is addressing parents concerns to a larger extent. However, the application of the said Act is limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. In other States, practically, there are no laws to deal with the fee hike problems. All India Parents Association (AIPA) has since long been demanding a Central Law to deal with the issue of commercialization in unaided private schools but the Central Government has not taken any step in this regard so far. It is the need of the hour that all the parents/parents bodies all over the country should write to the Prime Minister and the HRD Union Minister demanding immediate enactment of a Central Law, may be on the lines of the Tamil Nadu Act to check the commercialization of education in unaided private schools all over the country. We can also plan to hold a massive demonstration at Jantar Mantar at New Delhi in this regard sometimes in January, 2010.
Last but not the least, we should not forget that while fighting against the exploitation of the parents/students by the unaided private schools, we have to continue our fight for the up gradation of the standard of education in very government school to the minimum level of kendriya Vidayalays (Central Schools). Contact at juristashok@gmail.com.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
President, AIPA
M-09811101923
All India Parents Association (AIPA)
Agarwal Bhavan, G.T. Road
Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054
28.11.2009
Sub: Demand of National Law on the lines of Tamil Nadu
Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009
Dear Parents/Parents Associations,
It is interesting to note that the parents all over the country have raised voices against inaction on the part of the State Governments to check the menace of commercialization of education in unaided private schools. In 1997, on the pretext of 5th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools in Delhi increased fee and other charges ranging from 40% to 400%. This gave rise to unrest amongst the middle class parents and the parents organized themselves against the arbitrary fee hike by the unaided private schools. Needless to say that a PIL was filed in 1997 in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was decided on 30.10.1998 in favour of the parents. The High Court laid down the criteria and guidelines of fixing a reasonable fee structure in an unaided private school. The High Court also held that the Government is not only empowered but also has a duty to regulate fee of such schools to prevent commercialization of education and exploitation of parents/students. The schools filed appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the High Court decision which was dismissed on 27.04.2004. The schools took another opportunity through filing a review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking review of Supreme Court decision of 27.04.2004. Fortunately, the Supreme Court also dismissed the review petition on 07.08.2009.
In 2008, on the pretext of 6th Pay Commission Recommendations, the unaided private schools all over the country hiked fee and other charges exorbitantly and arbitrarily while Central and State Governments were just mute spectators to the same. This time, the parents all over the country organized themselves to a larger extent and openly protested against the schools and the governments. The parents associations in many part of the country approached their respective High Courts by way of filing writ petitions. The agitation by the parents in some States led the State Governments to issue certain directives to check the arbitrary fee hike. The school managements have filed writ petitions against such directives in their respect State High Courts. A PIL filed by the Parents in Delhi High Court is being heard on day to day basis and is expected to be concluded soon.
Friends, I wish to submit that though the parents are now better aware of their rights qua unaided private schools but the schools are very adamant to continue to exploit the parents and the students by subjecting them to pay unjustified fee and other charges. The State of Tamil Nadu has enacted Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009. Some of the relevant provisions of the said Act are reproduced as under:
Section 3(2) - No fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee under this Act shall be collected for admission of pupils to any standard or course of study in a private school.
Section 5(1) - The Government shall constitute a committee for the purpose of determination of the fee for admission to any Standard or course of study in private schools.
Section 5(2) - The committee shall consist of the following members, namely: -
(a) a retired High Court Judge, nominated
by the Government. -Chairperson;
(b) Director of School Education. -Ex-officio Member;
(c) Director of Matriculation Schools. -Ex-officio Member;
(d) Director of Elementary Education. -Ex-officio Member;
(e) Joint Chief Engineer (Buildings)
Public Works Department. -Ex-officio Member;
(f) Additional Secretary to Government,
School Education Department. -Ex-officio Member
Secretary.”
Section 6 -
(1) The committee shall determine the fee leviable by a private school taking into account the following factors, namely: -
(a) the location of the private school;
(b) the available infrastructure;
(c) the expenditure on administration and maintenance;
(d) the reasonable surplus required for the growth and development of the private school;
(e) any other factors as may be prescribed.
(2) The committee shall on determining the fee leviable by a private school, communicate its decision to the school concerned.
(3) Any private school aggrieved over the decision of the committee shall file their objection before the committee within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the decision of the committee.
(4) The committee shall consider the objection of the private school and pass orders within thirty days from the date of receipt of such objection.
(5) The orders passed by the committee shall be final and binding on the private school for three academic years. At the end of the sad period, the private school would be at liberty to apply for revision.
(6) The committee shall indicate the different heads under which the fee shall be levied.
Section 7 –
The powers and function of the committee shall be: -
(a) to determine the fee to be collected by private school;
(b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of fee in excess of the fee determined by it or fixed by the Government, as the case may be. If the committee, after obtaining the evidence and explanation from the management of the private school or aided school concerned or from the Government school, comes to the conclusion that the private school or the Government school or aided school has collected fee in excess of the fee determined by the committee or fixed by the Government, as the case may be, it shall recommend to the appropriate competent authority for the cancellation of the recognition or approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course approval, as the case may be, of the private school or aided school or for any other course of action as it deems fit in respect of the private school or Government school or aided school.
(2) The committee shall have power to: -
(a) require each private school to place before the committee the proposed fee structure of such school with all relevant documents and books of accounts for scrutiny within such date as may be specified by the committee;
(b) verify whether the fee proposed by the private school is justified and it does not amount to profiteering or charging of exorbitant fee;
(c) approve the fee structure or determine some other fee which can be charged by the private school.
(3) The Committee shall have power to: -
(a) verify whether the fee collected by the school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education; and
(b) to hear complaints with regard to collection of excess fee by a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education; and
(c) to recommend to the Central Board of Secondary Education for disaffiliation of the school, if it comes to a conclusion that the school has collected excess fee.
(4) The committee shall have the power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions, and shall, for the purpose of making any inquiry under this Act, have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely: -
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the receipt of evidence on affidavits;
(d) the issuing of any commission for the examination of witness.
Section 8 - The Government may regulate the maintenance of accounts by the private schools in such manner as may be prescribed.
Section 9 -
(1) Whoever contravenes the provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.
Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years.
(2) The person convicted under this section shall refund to the pupil from whom the excess fee was collected in contravention of this Act, such excess fee.
It appears that the Tamil Nadu Act is addressing parents concerns to a larger extent. However, the application of the said Act is limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. In other States, practically, there are no laws to deal with the fee hike problems. All India Parents Association (AIPA) has since long been demanding a Central Law to deal with the issue of commercialization in unaided private schools but the Central Government has not taken any step in this regard so far. It is the need of the hour that all the parents/parents bodies all over the country should write to the Prime Minister and the HRD Union Minister demanding immediate enactment of a Central Law, may be on the lines of the Tamil Nadu Act to check the commercialization of education in unaided private schools all over the country. We can also plan to hold a massive demonstration at Jantar Mantar at New Delhi in this regard sometimes in January, 2010.
Last but not the least, we should not forget that while fighting against the exploitation of the parents/students by the unaided private schools, we have to continue our fight for the up gradation of the standard of education in very government school to the minimum level of kendriya Vidayalays (Central Schools). Contact at juristashok@gmail.com.
With regards,
Ashok Agarwal, Advocate
President, AIPA
M-09811101923
Friday, November 13, 2009
Interim Order_10.11.2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10.11.2009
Present: Mr.Nitin Sahni, Adv. for the petitioner. Dr.A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.P.D. Gupta, Mr.Kamal Gupta and Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.1 Mr.V.K. Tandon, Adv. for respondent no.2
C.M.13998/2009 in WP(C).NO.10801/2009 Notice. Counsel for non-applicants accept notice. Counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners, the fees as demanded by the respondent ? school shall be deposited, however, he prays for two weeks time to deposit the same. Learned senior counsel for respondent ? school on instructions submits that the school shall not take any action against the students for a period of two weeks from today. Subject to the undertaking given by counsel for the petitioners today, counsel for respondent-school further submits that the school will not disallow any students from attending the classes. In view of the statement made by counsel for respondent ? school, counsel for petitioners does not wish to press this application. Dismissed as not pressed, at this stage.
G.S. SISTANI, J. November 10, 2009 'ssn' 35
Present: Mr.Nitin Sahni, Adv. for the petitioner. Dr.A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.P.D. Gupta, Mr.Kamal Gupta and Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.1 Mr.V.K. Tandon, Adv. for respondent no.2
C.M.13998/2009 in WP(C).NO.10801/2009 Notice. Counsel for non-applicants accept notice. Counsel for petitioners on instructions submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners, the fees as demanded by the respondent ? school shall be deposited, however, he prays for two weeks time to deposit the same. Learned senior counsel for respondent ? school on instructions submits that the school shall not take any action against the students for a period of two weeks from today. Subject to the undertaking given by counsel for the petitioners today, counsel for respondent-school further submits that the school will not disallow any students from attending the classes. In view of the statement made by counsel for respondent ? school, counsel for petitioners does not wish to press this application. Dismissed as not pressed, at this stage.
G.S. SISTANI, J. November 10, 2009 'ssn' 35
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Area Representatives
For any communication, please be in touch with our representatives at the below mentioned numbers
East of Kailash Ajay Chopra E-104, EOK 9811059450
East of Kailash Vinoo Sahdev C-53, 1st Flr 9818169078
Sant Nagar Nisha Mittal 44A, Ground Floor, Sant Nagar 9999903410
Garhi Vanadana Sharma 9/300, Amrit Puri-B 9958732049
GK, Bipin Arora E-222, GK-1 9810946808
Kailash Clny Photoland, Adj to Anupama Sweets, Kailash Colony
Kalkaji Main Shiva F-7, LGF 9810199909
Kalkaji Extn Shiva Pkt. A4/138 9810199910
CR Park Archana Acharya K 1/13, 1st Floor, CR Park 9871593131
CR Park D.P Sur D-647, CR Park 9818446437
Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Ngr-4 Gaurav H-16, Double Story 20534100
Amar Colony, Lajpat Ngr-4 Jitender Singh "Bawa" A-117, Amar Colony 9810237242
Lajpat Nagar 1,2,3 Sanjeev Suri C-6, Lajpat Nagar-3 Behind Haldiram 9810326028
Lajpat Nagar 1,2,3 Jyoti Dhamija 75, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Ngr-2 011-41724986
Ashram/Maharani Bagh J P Singh 126A, Sunlight Clny, DDA Flats 9868105673
South Extn Vinay Bhalla 34, Uday Park 9212413961
Okhla/New Friends Clny Raees Ahmad D-150, Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar 9212676919
Okhla/New Friends Clny Mr. Aarif 9811221667
Sarita Vihar Vikram Duggal F-259, Sarita Vihar 9899020604
Jasola Vikram Duggal F-259, Sarita Vihar 9899020604
Saket/Khanpur Pradeep Kapur A-36, Krishna Park 9810092986
Saket/Khanpur B.B Babbar Flat # 5, Gayatri Enclave, DDA Flats9871396730
Jangpura Bhogal Rahul Chadha O-27, LGF, Nr. Mother Dairy9818874945
Nizamuddin Rahul Chadha O-27, LGF, Nr. Mother Dairy9818874945
Malviya Nagar/Sheikh Sarai Mr. Ranjan Sharma 9810624140
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
HC Interim Order_7th Oct.09
Dear Parents;
The court has given 17th November as next date of hearing as Directorate's reply had not come today. The directorate will file their reply in next 7 days and then on 17th Nov. Judge will listen all arguments.
The court rejected the school's demand to take any action (Rule 167) against any child, who have not paid any fees (for any quarter).
We'll have to wait till 17th Nov to deposit any fees and in between we get the reply of DOE, we'll inform you as to how much fees need to be paid for 3rd quarter.
Rest assured school cannot touch any child or harass us to deposit the fee. If you encounter any harassment in the hands of the school management, then do let us know, we can file suit against the school.
If you want justice, then please don't come under any pressure of the school. STAY FIRM AND FIGHT FOR YOUR JUSTICE.
अगर अब इन्साफ नहीं मिला तो कभी नहीं मिलेगा ! अपने अधिकार को जानिए और उसके लेने के लिए कंधे से कन्धा मिला कर खड़े हो जाईये !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)