Monday, June 29, 2009

Recent school fee hike has triggered a basic question why someone setup education trust or societies?

Plz visit

Every inspection of books of accounts of these education trusts, societies & school run by them have come out with large financial irregularities including personal use of school fee fund by trust members.
National Knowledge Commission has recently recommened national level private schools regulation body in Dec 2008 to Prime Minister office however no action has yet started on that.
Yes, standup and expose their black deeds in front of entire nation.
State Government have multiple provisions to compel schools to keep resonable fee however it seems
they have no interest in suffering of middle class who has been denied access to fundamental right
of education in this country.
—— Private Schools need following 3 things to run a school ———-
1. Education Trust registered under under Indian Trust Act or Society Registered Societies Registration Act

2. Recognition from State Education Dept/ Directorate (No objection Certificate) and affedavits under state education act.
3. Affiliation from some Education Board like CBSE, ICSE 0r U.P.Board.

All above 3 are legal bodies and provide their approval based on their Bye-Laws so schools can not function in case they violate any of these bye-laws legally.
PTA Body have been provided many rights in CBSE Bye-Laws and 2 members representation in School Management Committe for smooth functioning of private schools. One can get any information which they want by filing applications under Right to Information Act.

Delhi NCR parents are running a protest drive against this exploitation and a PIL has been filed against various education no-trust bodies.
Trust/Societies Mgmt executives are misusing public money (At country level this scam would easily be worth thousands of crores every year) collected in name of school fee.

This fight to get our own due rights will take long time as it happens with all other cases in India, but we are sure at last, we will win.

Stand up & unite and raise your voice against this exploitation in the name of education service.

UP Govt hikes tax on private schools

The Uttar Pradesh government has imposed hefty taxes on private secondary schools in the state. The private schools affiliated with the CBSE and the ICSE will pay an annual tax of Rs 20,000 while the schools affiliated with the UP Board of High School and Intermediate Schools will pay between Rs 5,000 and Rs 20,000. The government has issued separate orders for the schools affiliated with the CBSE, ICSE and the UP Board.

The public schools run by minority communities and declared minority institutions have, however, been exempted from the tax. Under the order, aimed at mobilising resources for the exchequer, the government will charge additional fees for granting recognition and issuing no objection certificate (NoC) to schools seeking affiliation with the CBSE, the ICSE, and the UP Board.

The one-time fee to issue NoC to private schools seeking affiliation with the CBSE or ICSE has been hiked to Rs 25,000. The secondary schools teaching up to Class X, affiliated with the UP Board in semi-urban and rural areas will pay Rs 5,000 as tax, while those in urban areas will be charged Rs 10,000.

Private schools affiliated to UP Board and recognised for Class XII degree in rural areas will pay Rs 10,000 and those in urban areas will be charged Rs 20,000 as annual tax. The one-time fee for the schools teaching up to Class XII and seeking recognition from the UP Board has been doubled from present Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000.

The one-time fee for granting recognition for opening faculties like commerce and science has also been revised from Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000. The one-time fee for granting subject-wise recognition by the UP Board has been doubled from Rs 10,000 to Rs 20,000.

There are three categories of secondary schools imparting education up to Class XII in UP. These are government-owned, government-aided, and private institutions.

For opening a private school affiliated with the CBSE, ICSE, or with the UP Board, the promoter has to seek the NoC from the state government.

Earlier the NoC was issued free after an inspection of the school premises and the infrastructure by the secondary education department authorities. Every year around 1,100 and 40-50 schools are affiliated to the CBSE and ICSE, respectively.

Parents Fear backlash

Parents Urgue to DM to form Committee

Parents Hails Govt. Decision

Parents Fears

Fees will Freeze for Two years

Saturday, June 27, 2009

A historic ruling on schools -Off to school, in Delhi. The S C is expected to make private unaided schools affordable for children from middle class

The Supreme Court lays down guidelines to prevent profiteering by unaided schools in Delhi.

IN Delhi there are 1,500 private unaided schools offering `quality education' to about 30 per cent of the city's children. But this education comes at a price: these schools collect Rs.1,500 to 2,000 as tuition fee a month (some schools charge even Rs.8,000 a month) and amounts ranging from Rs.2,000 to 30,000 as annual fee for their own `development'. `Development', as parents have found, often means constructing more buildings, financing other schools run by the management and even creating and maintaining swimming pools. The schools do not generally fulfil their statutory obligation of filling 25 per cent of the seats with children from the weaker sections and granting freeship to them.
All this will have to change following the Supreme Court's judgment in Modern School vs Union of India & Others, delivered on April 27. It is expected that the school fees will be slashed by about 60 per cent, thus fulfilling the aspirations of middle-class and lower middle-class parents of educating their wards in these schools. The court also directed the schools to ensure that they meet the statutory requirement of admitting children from the weaker sections. A three-member Bench delivered the verdict by a majority of 2:1. Justice S.H. Kapadia gave the ruling on behalf of himself and Chief Justice of India V.N. Khare, while Justice S.B. Sinha authored the dissent.

The case came up before the Supreme Court as appeals by several unaided private schools in Delhi against a Delhi High Court judgment. The High Court had found considerable proof that recognised unaided schools were blatantly commercialising education. The High Court confirmed the existence of irregularities in the accounts maintained by these schools. It also declared that the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the rules framed under it prohibited the transfer of funds from a school to a society/trust running the school or to other schools run by the same society/trust. The High Court had appointed a committee headed by Justice Santosh Duggal to examine the economics of each of the recognised unaided schools in Delhi.

The Directorate of Education, Government of Delhi, accepted the Duggal Committee's report in 1999 and under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act issued directions to the managing committees of all recognised unaided schools in Delhi on December 15, 1999. The school managements challenged the validity of these directions, one of which limited development fees to 10 per cent.

The 141-page Duggal Committee report stated that of the 142 schools that supplied the complete record of their financial status, only two were justified in hiking the fee. Although there were 929 Delhi government-recognised unaided schools and 377 unaided schools recognised by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and New Delhi Municipal Committee, only 142 provided the documents sought by the committee. The rest of the schools did not adopt a cooperative attitude, the report noted. The report said these schools tended to "generally understate the surplus and/or overstate the deficit". This was achieved by "resorting to over-provisioning under certain heads... diverting a part of the school revenue receipts to various funds usually created with the specific intention of temporarily parking the money... depreciating assets not owned by the school and simultaneously transferring equivalent amounts to the parent society... ."

The parent societies (and not the schools) were allotted land at concessional rates on philanthropic grounds and as such the transfer of funds to a parent society is a grave matter. But the Committee found that "no ways and means are left untapped by them to turn the philanthropic activity like school education into a profitable venture in one form or the other". There is, therefore, no rationale whatsoever for a fee hike. The Supreme Court observed in a 1997 verdict: "Where the public property is being given to such institutions practically free... the conditions imposed should be consistent with public interest and should always stipulate that in case of violations of any of those conditions, the land shall be resumed by the government."

In their petition in the High Court, the parents associations alleged that the amounts collected under the head `tuition fee' were in excess of the expenditure incurred, and that huge amounts were taken from parents as interest-free loan for granting admission to children. They also alleged that the huge amounts collected under the head `building fund' remained unspent. The schools submitted that the increase in fees, annual charges, admission fees and security deposits were justified on account of the increase in expenses, in particular the salaries of teachers in compliance with the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations.

Section 17(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, states that every recognised school shall file before the commencement of each academic session with the Director a full statement of the fees to be levied and no school shall charge any fees in excess of the fees specified in such statement. Sections 17(1) and (2) empower the government to regulate the fees payable by aided schools. Other sections under the Act require that the income derived from unaided schools by way of fees shall be utilised only for prescribed educational purposes. Rule 177(8) under the Act clearly says that no amount can be transferred from the recognised unaided school fund to a society or trust or any other institution.

The income derived by way of fees can be utilised for meeting the pay, allowances and other benefits admissible to the employees of the school. If there is anything remaining of such income, after making these payments, the managing committee of the school could use the same for other educational purposes, including the award of scholarships to pupils and the establishment of any other recognised school. The rules make it clear that savings could be arrived at only after providing for pension, gratuity and other benefits to the employees of the school and for any expenditure in connection with the school's development.

In the T.M.A. Pai Foundation case (2002), an 11-member Bench of the Supreme Court held that subject to the twin prohibitions on collecting capitation fee and profiteering, fees to be charged by unaided educational institutions cannot be regulated. In the Islamic Academy of Education case (2003), the Supreme Court held that there could be no rigid fee structure and that each institution should have the freedom to fix its own fee structure after taking into account the need to generate funds to administer the institution and provide facilities to the students.

In the present case, the Supreme Court has held that the Director is authorised to regulate the fees and other charges to prevent the commercialisation of education.

The Supreme Court opined that one of the methods of preventing the commercialisation of education in schools is to insist that every school follow the principles of accounting applicable to not-for-profit organisations/non-business organisations. The court thus directed the Director to analyse the statements of fees of the schools and apply the above principle in each case. The court found, on the basis of the balance sheets of two schools, that they were run on a profit-making basis and that their accounts were maintained as if they were corporate bodies.

The court upheld the collection of development fees by schools for supplementing resources for the purchase, upgradation and replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment. It permitted the managements of unaided schools to charge development fees not exceeding 15 per cent of the total annual tuition fee.

The court interpreted the 1973 Act so as to bring in transparency, accountability, expenditure management and utilisation of savings for capital expenditure/investment without infringement of the autonomy of the institution in the matter of fixing fees.

The court asked the Director to ascertain whether the terms of allotment of land by the government to the schools had been complied with. The terms of allotment require not only strict compliance with the percentage of freeship from tuition fee as laid down in the rules by the Delhi Administration, but also admission of pupils from the weaker sections to the extent of 25 per cent and the grant of freeship to them. Contrary to the misgivings expressed by the school managements, the integration of children from the poorer sections with those of the `elite' has been generally welcomed by the parents of children from the non-weaker sections, says Ashok Agarwal, convener of Social Jurist, a non-governmental organisation and one of the petitioners before the High Court.
in New Delhi
Vol:21 Iss:10 URL:

UNAIDED RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS Govt Must Now Act Against Arbitrary Fee Hikes

THE Supreme Court judgement of April 27, 2004 in the Modern School case is a historic judgement having far reaching effects in the field of school education --- not only for Delhi schools but also for schools all over the country. The Supreme Court was primarily dealing with the menace of commercialisation of education and exploitation of hapless parents by unaided recognised private schools in Delhi through arbitrary fee hikes every year.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court also looked into the aspect of violation of the conditions of public land allotments by these unaided recognised private schools, particularly in regard to the condition of providing admission to the extent of 25 per cent to the children of weaker sections and granting them freeships. This judgement is being seen as a radical step to make education in private schools affordable to common man and to encourage integration of children belonging to weaker sections in the schools that were hitherto known as elite schools.


Let us see what was the background of this judgement. There are in Delhi around 1,500 unaided recognised private schools that impart education from Lower KG to Class XII, to around one million children (1/3 of the school going child population of Delhi). Majority of the children studying in these schools belong to the upper and middle class, and also lower middle class, while a small percentage belongs to the poor classes. One of the major reasons of sending children to these schools is that the standard of education in government schools is so poor that even a poor parent does not wish to send his child to a government school. It is not that all the government schools are bad. Though these private schools had been increasing fee and other charges every year, the increases in April 1997 ranged between 40 and 400 per cent and were effected on the pretext of liability to pay higher salary to the staff in anticipation of the fifth Pay Commission recommendations.

This sudden arbitrary and exorbitant fee hike caused great unrest among the hapless and unorganised parents of Delhi. They manifested their unrest by gathering in large numbers outside school gates, submitting representations to the schools and the government, holding meetings and demonstrations etc. The compelling situation brought them together under the banner of ‘Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh’ that resolved to fight against exploitation of parents by these schools. Faced with the parents’ agitation, the Delhi government in May 1997 ordered inspection of the accounts of 16 private schools. Though these inspections revealed that schools were indulging in commercialisation of education and exploiting the parents, the government did not take any action against them and left the hapless parents to be exploited by these greedy managements. Failing to get any justice from the government, the parents ultimately decided to take the issue to the Delhi High Court through a public interest litigation (PIL).

The first hearing on this PIL by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh took place on September 8, 1997, by a division bench of the High Court and the learned judges on the bench issued notices to the government of India, government of Delhi, CBSE, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and 32 unaided recognised private schools named in the petition.

After the High Court issued notices to the respondents in the PIL on September 8, 1997, the government of Delhi promptly issued an order on September 10, 1997, fixing the maximum limits of registration fee, admission fee, caution money, etc, and also directing the schools to utilise their accumulated reserves first to meet the salary increases. It said if the reserves were not found sufficient, the fee could be increased to the extent required after consultation with the representatives of parent teacher associations. Perceiving this government order as a threat to their monopoly to loot the parents, however, the schools moved the High Court seeking the quashing of this order. The High Court heard the PIL of the parents and the petitions of the schools together and finally delivered a landmark judgement on October 31, 1998. It accepted the plea of the parents and rejected the challenge of the schools.


The High Court in the judgement concluded:

1.It is the obligation of the administrator and/or director of education to prevent commercialisation and exploitation in private unaided schools, including the schools run by minorities.
2.The tuition fee and other charges need to be fixed in a validly constituted meeting, giving an opportunity to the representatives of parent teacher associations and a nominee of the director of education to place their viewpoints.
3. No permission from director of education is necessary before or after fixing tuition fee. In case, however, such fixing is found to be irrational and arbitrary, there are ample powers under the act and rules to issue directives to schools to rectify it before resorting to harsh measures. The question of commercialisation of education and exploitation of parents by each school can be authoritatively determined on a thorough examination of its accounts and other records.
4.The act and the rules prohibit transfer of funds from a school to its society or from one school to another.
5.The tuition fee cannot be fixed to recover capital expenditure that is incurred on the society’s properties.
6.Inspections of schools, audits of accounts and compliance of the provisions of the act and rules by private recognised unaided schools could have prevented the present state of affairs.
7.The authorities and the director of education have failed in their obligation to get the accounts of private recognised unaided schools audited from time to time.
8.The schools or societies can take voluntary donations provided these are not connected with the admission of wards.
9.On the peculiar facts of these petitions, there was per se no illegality in the issue of the impugned circular dated September 10, 1997.
10.An independent statutory committee, by an amendment of law if necessary, deserves to be constituted to go into the factual position and adjudicate disputes which may arise in future in the matter of fixation of tuition fee and other charges.
11. The government should consider extending the act and rules, with or without modifications, to all schools --- from nursery onward.

By the same judgement, the High Court also appointed a committee with Ms Justice Santosh Duggal as chairperson. The committee was to decide whether or not the increase in tuition fee and other charges effected by each school --- during the period since the order dated September 10, 1997 up to the start of academic session in 1999 --- was justified. It had to decide the question by eliminating the element of commercialisation and in the light of observations made by the High Court.

The school moved the Supreme Court against this judgement of the High Court. In its judgement of April 27, 2004, the Supreme Court rejected the schools’ appeal and upheld the High Court judgement.

It may be noted that, pursuant to the High Court judgement, the government of Delhi had constituted the Justice Duggal committee on December 7, 1998. But the committee could not complete the task given by the High Court due to non-cooperation by the government and schools. Had the committee completed its task, the parents would have got the refund of an estimated Rs 800 crore from the schools which they had charged extra from the parents during 1997-98 and 1998-99 under the High Court’s interim order dated December 11, 1997. This order had permitted all these schools to increase the tuition fee by up to 40 per cent.

Yet the committee submitted a report to the government on July 31, 1999, making various factual observations on the devices being used by the schools to exploit the parents and charge unwarranted hefty fees and other charges. The committee also made various recommendations. Interestingly, the committee observed that, out of 142 schools examined, there were only two schools whose fee hikes in 1997-98 were justified; fee hikes in the remaining 140 schools were either not justified at all or were justified only partially.

Following the committee’s recommendations, the government issued an order on December 15, 1999, prescribing among others things the manner of calculating the amount of tuition fee and other charges under the specified heads only. But before the Supreme Court the schools raised serious objections to this order as well, seeking a free hand to charge from parents any amount without limit, in the name of quality education and expansion of education, and without interference by the authorities. The Supreme Court rejected this plea also.


The most significant aspect of the Supreme Court judgement is that it has finally laid to rest the controversy whether the government has the authority to regulate the fee and other charges of unaided recognised private schools and thus to prevent commercialisation of education. The Supreme Court has categorically held that the government has the authority to regulate the fee in unaided schools.

The Supreme Court went even further to direct the director of education to ensure that the schools to whom public lands were allotted at throwaway prices, comply with the terms of land allotment. The two significant conditions pointed out by the Supreme Court are: (a) a school shall not increase the rates of tuition fee without the prior sanction of the directorate of education, and (b) the school shall admit to students belonging to the weaker sections to the extent of 25 per cent and grant them freeships.

Now it has to be seen what action the government is going to take against the erring schools to ensure that they roll back the hikes in fee and other charges to a level that is just, reasonable and devoid of an element of commercialisation. The government needs to constitute another committee, with another retired High Court judge as chairperson, to complete the task entrusted to the Justice Duggal committee but left by it because of non-cooperation by interested parties. This is a must as the cheated parents are eagerly awaiting a refund of the excess amounts charged from them by the schools under the interim order of the High Court. It is estimated that if the Supreme Court judgement is implemented, the present fee level will come down by 60 per cent. It is also estimated that since 1997-98 till this year, the schools have unjustly charged an excess amount to the extent of Rs 3,000 crore from the hapless parents of Delhi, which amount the parents are entitled to get back immediately. The ball is now in the government’s court.

Ashok Agarwal

(The author, a Supreme Court advocate, represented the parents before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.)

Friday, June 26, 2009

DPS Society ex-president seeks equality, transparency for all

Salman Khurshid says a system where only 11 schools owned and run by the society have voting rights is not fair to the franchise owners

New Delhi: Is one branch of Delhi Public School equal to another? 
Parents across the country have grappled with this question for decades as they scoured admission options at the prestigious school chain for their children, pulling out connections and credentials to snag elusive seats.
Now, the society in charge of the school, better known by its acronym DPS, is being forced to answer the same question.
The DPS Society runs a network of 115 schools in India and 13 abroad.
In a letter to all owners of the schools, former president of the society, Congress party member and Supreme Court lawyer Salman Khurshid said a system where only 11 of those schools—owned and run by the society—have voting rights on its governing board is not fair to the franchise owners, who pay a fee for the right to use the DPS name and logo.
At the very least, Khurshid said, schools should have a right to vote for their governing body’s chairman and review the society’s finances.
Discordant note: Salman Khurshid. Rajeev Dabral / MintThis becomes significant as schools currently pay a royalty to the society of Rs5 lakh per year. The royalty is set to go up to Rs25 lakh, Khurshid said.
“I am saying, no taxation without representation”, said Khurshid, asking the schools to stand united behind him.
“I cannot accept you as mere agents of DPS. Neither does our charter permit such a thing and what is more important is that public morality does not allow this. There cannot be ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’ DPS schools,” Khurshid—a DPS alumnus, member of the society since 1984 and its president for 12 years—wrote in his 16 August letter.
Thrown out
After the letter, the society, headed by chairman and retired bureaucrat Ashok Chandra, voted to throw Khurshid out.
One member said the dispute stems from Khurshid’s desire to be president of the society again, a role that is now not filled by anyone.
“Our rules and regulations say a member can be asked to withdraw on a month’s notice,” said Chandra of Khurshid’s dismissal.
He said the notice asking Khurshid to withdraw from the society went out on 1 September. Chandra declined to comment on any of Khurshid’s other allegations.
Intertwined in the fight between Khurshid and the society are issues ranging from the use of influence to secure admissions to expensive junkets enjoyed by society members at the expense of the schools.
The society’s members include Planning Commission deputy chairman and DPS alumnus Montek Singh Ahluwalia, author Khushwant Singh and governor of Haryana A.R. Kidwai, along with retired bureaucrats and judges.
Its other members include principals of the 11 DPS schools owned by the society, including DPS R.K. Puram principal Shyama Chona, a well-known face in education circles. Chona declined to comment.

DPS Society expels Salman Khurshid

New Delhi, September 2 The Delhi Public School Society has expelled from its membership Senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid after he allegedly raised objections against the functioning of the society’s management, which runs 130 schools in the country.
The leader, who was also the president of the ‘non-profit organisation’, has decided to go court against the move, which came after Khurshid spoke up against the “illegal collection of money” from many of its schools. The expulsion came after Khurshid wrote a letter to the 119 schools affiliated with the DPS asking them to demand that they be made full-time members of the Delhi Public School Society.

Khurshid was external affairs minister in the Narasimha Rao-led government and served as the President of the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee.

He has alleged that the DPS Society is illegally collecting money from schools in the name of licence fee and signing fee, which is against of the norms of the Delhi Education Department and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).

Khurshid was served the notice for expulsion after a meeting of the management committee of the DPS Society on August 28, which said the Congress leader has no “sympathies and belief in (its) objectives”.

He has alleged that the management had a problem with him ever since he wrote letters to the affiliated schools asking them to demand amendment in the constitution of the society enabling them to become fulltime members.

“They have a right to be part of the DPS Society,” he said. In the August 28 meeting, Kurshid claimed, he was told that he should not have written to the schools in this regard.

Apart from 11 schools owned by the society, 119 schools, owned by various other societies, have been given affiliation.

The society collects Rs five lakh from these schools every year. Khurshid has alleged that the Society was planning to increase the amount. “Now they want to increase Rs five lakh to Rs 25 lakh. I spoke up against the proposal but a majority of my colleagues were not willing to listen,” Khurshid said.

“DPS is exempted from paying income tax. It is not entitled to do business.”

He said he would approach the Delhi Government and the CBSE asking them to take immediate steps soon.

The Congress leader had first become a member of DPS Society in 1984 and its president in 1993.

Ashok Chandra, the Chairman of the society, did not deny the move but refused to comment on the matter.

Functioning of DPS Society: HC three-member team to look into Khurshid’s complaints

New Delhi, September 19 The Delhi High Court on Friday deputed three eminent persons, including Governor of Haryana A R Kidwai and Vice-Chairperson of Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia, to look into allegations of “irregularities” in the functioning of Delhi Public School (DPS) Society raised by its former president and senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid.
Khurshid had recently moved the Delhi High Court after the Society expelled him for objecting to the style of functioning of the latter’s management.

Justice Hima Kohli, who heard the case, asked Kidwai, Ahluwalia and a leading member of the DPS Society, Sharda Nayak, to hear both sides and amicably resolve issues raised in Khurshid’s petition.

The court further posted the matter for September 30. Khurshid, who challenged his expulsion order of September 1, claimed he had pointed out several irregularities in the working of the society. He alleged the society management, which runs 130 schools across the country, was illegally collecting money from its affiliated schools in the name of licence fee and signing fee, much against the norms of the Delhi Education Act.

His expulsion allegedly followed a decision to intimate in writing all the 119 affiliated schools, asking them to become full-time members of the society, Khurshid submitted.

“Instead of correcting its mistake, the society issued a letter informing that he shall cease to be a member of the DPS Society,” the former Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee chief said in court.

“The issues we have raised cannot be limited to the working of a society, but affects the future of over 1.5 lakh children studying in these affiliated schools which are attractive because of the DPS tag. We are against the commercialisation of education and the court has intervened in a big way here,” said Hamidullah Bhat, counsel for Khurshid.

The Congress leader had first become a member of the DPS society in 1984 and its president in 1993.

UP plans public school fees hike

Mauli Bhatt / Lucknow July 06, 2005

Cash-strapped Uttar Pradesh government, under a debt burden of Rs 100,000 crore, is contemplating a proposal to effect a substantial hike in fees charged from the public schools for seeking recognition and a no-objection certificate (NoC).

For opening a private school affiliated with CBSE or ICSE, one has to seek NOC from the state government. Earlier the NOC was issued free of cost after inspection of the school premises and the infrastructure by the secondary education department authorities.

The department has proposed to charge one time fee of Rs 25,000 from such schools for issuing NOC to new schools. Annual fee of Rs 10,000 is proposed to be imposed on the existing schools affiliated to the CBSE and ICSE.

Number of such schools in UP is 1,100 and 40-50 schools are being added every year. The public schools run by the minority communities and declared minority institutions are proposed to be exempted from the fee.

For the secondary schools seeking affiliation and recognition from the UP Board of High school and Intermediate, one time recognition fee is proposed to be increased to Rs 20,000 from Rs 10,000.

The schools seeking up gradation from 10 to 12th standard would now have to shell out additional Rs 5,000 as the fee is proposed to be increased to Rs 10,000 from Rs 5,000. The schools to desiring to add new subjects and seeking recognition from the UP board, the fee is likely to increased to Rs 5,000 from Rs 2,500.

The fee for recognition is deposited between January 1 to march 31 every year. The latecomers have to pay penalty or late fee of Rs 2,000. The penalty is proposed to be hiked to Rs 10,000.

There were three categories of schools affiliated with the UP board of high school and intermediate—government owned, government aided and private unaided institutions. There were 548 government owned inter colleges better known as GIC or government inter college, 4,460 government aided inter colleges and over 7,000 unaided privately run inter colleges.

There is no proposal to charge any fee from the unaided private but recognised high and inter colleges, said AK Srivastava, secretary secondary education department.

“If any fee is imposed on the unaided colleges then they would pass on the burden to the students and since we don’t regulate their fee structure and neither provide financial assistance to them so there was no justification of imposing any burden on such schools, said Srivastava.

He however added that the proposal was at a very nascent stage and it may acquire concrete shape as soon as it is placed from the cabinet.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Fee Hike Issue

22nd June 09
20th June 09

19th June 09

19th June 09

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Fee hike issue: HC stays govt notification to conduct PTA

New Delhi Thursday, Apr 30 2009 IST
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The Delhi High Court today stayed the Delhi Government's April 16 notification suggesting conduct of parent-teacher association (PTA) meetings to resolve the issue of fee hike.
A division bench of Justices A K Sikri and Suresh Kait directed the Delhi Government to withdraw its notification saying it "will interfere with the working of school adminstration." Directorate of Education (DoE), under the Govt of NCT (Delhi Govt) by its notification dated April 16, had directed all the schools
to hold meetings with the parents within 30 days in their respective schools and allowed the schools to go ahead with the fee hikeif it was approved by PTA.
Meanwhile, a school "Faith Academy", based in Prasad Nagar (Central Delhi), has intervened in the main petition stating that being a Christian unaided minority school it did not come within the ambit of instructions issued by the Delhi government. Therefore, it sought exemption from the notification issued by the Delhi government.
In its petition filed in the High Court, Mr M Qayam-Ud-Din, lawyer for Faith Academy, contended before the court that under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Delhi School Education Rules 1973, the minority schools can be run by its own management
and the government cannot interfere in its running he said.
The court admitted the petition of the minority school and fixed May 25 as next date for hearing.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a group of parents -- Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh -- which said the fee hike by private schools was violative of the recent recommendations given by the 'Ganguly Committee' and over rules the child's fundamental rights to basic education.
The parents appealed for quashing of the official notification on school fee hike, recommended by the S C Bansal Committee set up by the Delhi government last year, and rolling back the fee hike immediately as it was causing undue strain on the parents.
The Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh, aided by NGO Social Jurist, has challenged the DoE notification on the grounds that it violates the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court that the accounts of each school be examined before they are allowed to raise the fee. On the other hand, the schools have been demanding up to 50 per cent tuition fee hike in order to implement the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations to provide teachers salaries and arrears. The DoE has created five slabs on the basis of the existing tuition fee in schools, allowing them a maximum fee hike of Rs 500.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

International unaided schools move court over fee hike ban

23 Jun 2009, 0147 hrs IST, Swati Deshpande, TNN
MUMBAI: School
education issues are all set to dominate matters before the Bombay high court this week. Even as a flurry of writs is still being
filed by parents of students in ICSE and CBSE schools against the state's controversial 90% SSC reservations for junior college admissions, an association of international schools in the city has also moved the HC to challenge the state-imposed blanket ban on fee hikes. The schools-which attract children of well heeled parents seeking international curriculum-contend that the ban is illegal and unconstitutional. Sixteen schools, run by private unaided managements offering education under affiliation from boards such as the International General Certificate of Secondary Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, and the International Baccalaureate, Geneva, Switzerland, including the Jankidevi Public School, Singapore International School, Utpal Sanghvi School, Poddar World and B D Somani International School, have filed a petition against the state's government resolution to prevent fee hike. The GR issued on May 8 has prevented all private unaided schools in the state from increasing fees for the academic years 2009-10 till a proposed fee committee is set up. "The GR threatens all such private unaided schools with cancellation of the no-objection certification. Therefore, their very existence is in gross violation of the guarantee under the Constitution to establish and run private schools, said the petition filed through law firm, Nankani & Associates. The petition, filed last Friday, will come up for hearing on June 26. The association has alleged a clear political motive behind the fee hike ban. "The GR not only violates the landmark ruling and law declared by the 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the TMA Pai case permitting greater autonomy to private colleges for charging fees, but it is clearly a political move with eyes on the forthcoming state elections. The ban is "arbitrary and with no legal authority and would take the autonomy of all private unaided schools in violation of the constitutional guarantee'', the petition said. It was a challenge to fees raised by Balbharti Public school, Kharghar that led to the ban. A statement was made by the government lawyer in the Balbharti School case that the state would issue instructions to the school not to implement its fee hike. The HC, had then directed the state to prohibit fee hike in all educational institutions from nursery to junior college till a committee is formed by the state. "The restriction is not only unreasonable but destroys the very essence of autonomy. Besides the state has no power to either approve or disappove the fees being charged by unaided schools,'' the petition stated.

Some More Articles...

17th June 09

17th June 09

17th June 09

16th June 09

16th June 09

16th June 09

15th June 09
15th June 09
15th June 09
13th June 09

13th June 09
13th June 09

Monday, June 22, 2009

Delhi Govt nod to fee-hike by private schools

New Delhi: Get ready to dole out more for the education of your children in the Capital's schools, as the Delhi cabinet has given its nod to a fee hike for recognised un-aided private schools. The Delhi government had constituted a committee headed by S.L. Bansal, a retired IAS officer, to examine the financial implications of implementation of the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission for the recognised un-aided private schools. "A decision has been taken after due consideration of the recommendations of the Bansal Committee. The cabinet has carefully considered all aspects and has decided to suggest increase of monthly tuition fee in five slabs ranging from Rs.100-500 per month for 1,976 recognised un-aided private schools in Delhi," Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit told mediapersons after the cabinet meeting. "It has been suggested to the schools to hike tuition fee with effect from September 1, 2008, in case they feel that hike is unavoidable," she said. The schools have been placed in five categories based on their present monthly tuition fees. Schools charging tuition fee up to Rs.500, Rs.501-1,000, Rs.1, 001-1,500, Rs.1501-2000 and above Rs.2,000 per month may make an increase of Rs.100, Rs.200, Rs.300, Rs.400 and Rs.500 in tuition fee respectively, reports IANS. "The suggestions in respect of hike in tuition fee are not mandatory. The schools have to take their own decision in this regard though an upper limit of hike has been fixed," the statement added. There shall not be any further increase in the tuition fee till March 2010, the statement said. "Arrears would also be similarly categorised and deposited by parents in two instalments- 1st instalment by March 31, 2009, and second by September 30, 2009. The schools, however, are at liberty to prescribe later dates," the Chief Minister said. No student appearing for 10th and 12th standard board examinations in 2009 shall be harassed by any school on account of non- or delayed payment of any fees or arrears. Such students will not be denied an admit card or disallowed from appearing for the exams, or denied a school leaving certificate, or transfer certificate or any other document, the government statement said. Dikshit said that a Grievance Redressal Committee is being constituted with the Director (Education) as the Chairperson. "The committee would look into petitions filed by those schools which feel aggrieved by the suggestions. The affected schools are being requested to approach the committee along with
accounts of the school within 30 days from the issue of order," the statement said. It would resolve each grievance brought before it. It has been decided to release salary arrears to teachers of 1,976 recognised un-aided private schools in two instalments - 1st (40 per cent) in April 2009 and second (60 per cent) in October 2009, it added.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

And those for who thought its not for me !!!!

The protest by parents from various schools had major coverage by TV & print. Yesterday every TV channel (Telugu) had telecast ed the rally. And its the turn of our friends in print media to show their support to us ... check out few well covered articles

Wish you all Happy Father's Day !

21 June,2009 4.00 PM CheckMate.

For reach us u can mail us at
visit us
For Contact sms ipwa To 56070.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Some News Papers Carried the Articles

12th June 09

10th June09

9th June 09

8th June 09

7th June 09

Member Commitee

Kanpur Abhibhavak Association Sitting on Hunger Strikes

Fighting for a cause of fee hike
28th May

27th May 09

Parents take to Gandhigiri to protest against the fees-hike

19th May

Articles in Hindustan times on 19th May

16th May 09
Parents Staging Demonstration at Gandhi Statue .

Against The Increase of Fee Hike

16th May

How to react Govt.

What will be happend when parents reach the school.

13th May