BEFORE THE

SCHEDULE CASE & SCHEDULE TRIBE COMMISSION

Petitioner/ Complainant

(1) Surinder Kumar S/o Mehnga Ram R/o House No. 237, Village

Palsora, Chandiagrh 160 040

Respondents/ Opposite Parties

(1) Principal, Delhi Public School, Sector 40, Chandigarh – 160 040

(2) Sh. Manish Bansal, Delhi Public School, Sector 40, Chandigarh –

160 040

(3) Sh. V. K. Singh, Education Secretary, UT Secretariat, Sector 9,

Chandigarh – 160 009

(4) Sh. Upkar Singh, Director Education, UT Secretariat, Sector 9,

Chandigarh – 160 009

(5) Chief Functionary, Management Body, Delhi Public School, Sector

40, Chandigarh – 160 040

COMPLAINT/PETITION FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND TAKING

ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER, BY THE

ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS as per the provisions of Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

; Constitution of India and other legal provisions.

WITH PRAYER TO;

Issue suitable orders/ directions/ instruction directing the respondents to

ensure the rightful benefit of admission of child Harman Jot (DOB 16-01-2010)

S/o Surinder Kumar in Delhi Public School, the neighbourhood school of

village Palsora under the seats reserved for Schedule Castes (Under

Disadvantaged Group of RTE), Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and/or

for Disadvantages Groups under the provisions of Right to Education Act

and/or the scheme of Chandigarh Administration for EWS.

And

For passing suitable orders/ directions/ instruction to penalise the respondents

and compensate the complainant/ petitioner suitable under the provisions of

the Act “Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989” and Rules made thereunder

And

For taking action against all the respondents, including the 'Public Servants'

who neglected to discharge their duty of ensuring protection of right of

Schedule Caste and ensuring that no discrimination is done, what-so-ever so

that the statutory benefit, as provided for under EWS education policy and the

Right to Education is made available to children belonging to SC/ST category.

And

for issuance of suitable orders/ directions/ instruction which this Hon'ble

commission deems fit.

With a request for

INTERIM RELIEF for issuance of suitable orders/ directions/ instruction to give

admission to child Harman Jot (DOB 16-01-2010) S/o Surinder Kumar in Delhi

Public School against the EWS/ RTE seats which is rightful due of the son of

the petitioner/ complainant.

RESPECTIVELY SHOWETH:

1) That the Petitioner is father of a child named Harmon Jot a resident of

village Palsora in Chandigarh and is casually employed as a television

mechanic. His total income is Rupees 60,278 per annum which has

been verified by the SDM (South) vide his certificate number

SDM(S)/SDA/12/964 dated 13.12.2012. The petitioner also belongs to

the Schedule Caste Category, which has been duly certified by the Sub

Divisional Magistrate vide certificate number SDM/AWBN/91/2425 dated

8.08.1991.

2) That the petitioner number 1 belongs to “Disadvantaged Group,” as

mentioned in the “Right to Education Act” and also in the “Economically

Weaker Section (EWS)” as per the criteria laid down by the Chandigarh

Administration for admission under the 15% EWS seats and also under

the 25% seats earmarket under RTE Act.

3) That the petitioners belongs to Schedule Caste segment of the Society

and so moving this Hon'ble commission against the discrimination and

atrocious attitude and actions, by the named respondents, solely for the

reason that the petitioner/complainant is not a resourceful person and

belongs to the Schedule Caste segment of the society.

4) That Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989

provides for protection of the rights of the person belonging to SC/ST segment

of the society. Article 15 of the Constitution provides for prohibition against

discrimination. Article 21 of the Constitution of India gurantees right to life and

personal liberty to all citizens of India which reads as follows; “Article 21:

Protection of life and personal liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life

or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Article

21-A reads as follows; “21A: The State shall provide free and compulsory

education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as

the State may, by law, determine.”

5) That Section 12(1) of the The Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act provides for admission to pre-school classes

whereever the school is imparting pre-school education. The provisions

of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 12(1) of the RTE act shall apply for

admission to such pre-school education. Section 12(1) reads as follows;

Section 12: Extent of school’s responsibility for free and

compulsory education (1) For the purposes of this Act, a

school,– (a) specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of

section 2 shall provide free and compulsory elementary

education to all children admitted therein; (b) specified in

sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of section 2 shall provide free

and compulsory elementary education to such proportion of

children admitted therein as its annual recurring aid or

grants to received bears to its annual recurring expenses,

subject to a minimum of twenty-five per cent; (c) specified in

sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 shall

admit in class I, to the extent of at least twenty-five per cent,

of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker

section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and

provide free and compulsory elementary education till its

completion:

Provided further that where a school specified in clause

(n) of section 2 imparts pre-school education, the

provisions of clauses (a) to (c) shall apply for

admission to such pre-school education.

6) That policy of the Chandigarh Administration regarding providing seats

in all schools in Chandigarh to the extent of 15% in each-and-every-

class has been extended to all schools including “Delhi Public School,”

the respondent number 2.

7) That while defining the said policy, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana

High Court in CWP No. 18147 of 2008 (Para 11) had inter-alia held that,

“schools are to follow a uniform academic year from 1st April to 31st

March and 15% quota would mean 15% of the students to be admitted

to each class in a year. In other words, the quota of 15% is not required

to be maintained at the entry level alone. It has to be maintained in the

subsequent classes as well.”

8) That Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and

equal protection of law. Article. The petitioner asserts to have the same

rights as other person from the disadvantaged section of the society.

Article 15 provides for prohibition of discrimination on the basis of caste

or place of birth, etc. That Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees

freedom of speech and expression. For free flow of speech and

expression, proper education and training is a prerequisite.

CAUSE OF ACTION

9) That petitioner applied in January 2013 to “Delhi Public School” for

admission of his son Harmon Jot (Date of Birth 16.01.2012) against

seats earmarked for EWS section of the Society, and also under RTE for

seats provided for disadvantaged group. All supporting documents,

including the Date of Birth Certificate of the Child, Schedule Caste

Certificate, Income Certificate and Address Proof were annexed with the

application.

10) That when the respondents number 1, 2 and 5, i.e Delhi Public School

and its management did not provide any response, the petitioner

approached the Chandigarh Administration (i.e. Respondent number 3

and 4). Subsequently, Chandigarh Administration also invited

applications through centralized registration wherein the petitioner again

submitted his application along-with supporting documents. (Annexure

P-1)

11) That a number of reminders were given to the school and the

Chandigarh Administration for admission of his child, including a

communication dated 19.02.2012 addressed to DPI Schools; dated

13.03.2013 to DEO; dated 12.04.2013 to DPI; 12.04.2013 to DPI. Copy

of one such communication (similar to all other) is annexed as

Annexure P-2.

12) That the income certificate, caste certificate, residence proof and birth

certificate were annexed with the applications. Caste certificate is

Annexure P-3 and Income certificate is Annexure P-4.

13) That the Chandigarh Administration forwarded the application filed

through centralised system to Delhi Public School (Annexure P-5) and

subsequently also communicated on 16.04.2013 to Delhi Public School

regarding admission of child of petitioner 1. Annexure P-6 and

Annexure P-7.

14) That the respondent 1,2 and 5, i.e. Delhi Public School and its

management still refused admission to the child of petitioner on flimsy

grounds; solely for the actual reason that the petitioner is extremely poor

and belongs to the Schedule Caste category of the Society. Petitioner

also contacted the office of the school, they refused to give any letter of

rejection, however while calling the office of the respondent number 1,

Petitioner recoded the audio of the conversation for his own record,

wherein the school staff intimated him that the admission can not be

granted. If required the audio recording can be submitted for

administration of justice in this Commission.

15) That the reason for refusing the statutory rights available to the

petitioner is purely because of his caste, which has been indicated

verbally and non-verbally by the DPS school authorities. The

Chandigarh Administration officials also have a very negative attitude

towards people belonging to SC/ST category and make them wait for

hours before allowing them to meet any official. The petitioner had to

face discriminating attitude of the officials of the Chandigarh

Administration and never got proper response solely for being a person

belonging to low income category and for the reason that he belonged to

SC/ST category of the society.

16) That Delhi Public School is said to be run by an organisation which is

claimed to be belonging to powerful people. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal,

who is a Cabinet Minister and Smt. Ambika Soni, a Member of

Parliament and Sh. Salman Khursheed, a Union Minister through their

families are known and said to be associated with the Delhi Public

School.

17) That the petitioner also approached the management of DPS, i.e.

Respondent number 2, Sh. Manish Bansal s/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal

in Delhi Public School and updated him with all the facts, requesting him

to admit the child, as the other children have been. Sh. Manish Bansal

flatly refused stating that the distance to the residence of petitioner 1

was more than one kilometer, if measured by road (and not aerial

distance) and therefore the child of petitioner 1 was not eligible for

admission in the school. Sh. Bansal also said that their school was not

bound under the EWS or RTE norms to admit SC students and the

Education Department has been misguiding people, he refused

admission to the child of petitioner. It is worth noting that there are a

very few students belonging to SC category from the economically

weaker section (with less than 72,000 Rs. income) admitted in DPS.

18) That Petitioner intimated the officials of Chandigarh Administration,

including respondent number 4, who expressed their inability. One of the

junior official mentioned that they can't send notice of compliance to

DPS and its management, as that will result in transfer of suspension

since the school belongs to a sitting member of parliament and minister

Pawan Kumar Bansal.

19) That discouraged by the attitude of the school and not knowing what is

to be done, petitioner contacted some concerned citizens and media

people, who highlighted his case and also contacted the DPI

Chandigarh. The case of petitioner was reported in a couple of

vernacular newspapers too.

20) That after the report of the case appeared in a couple of newspapers,

petitioner was approached by four people at around 08.30 p.m. On April

27, 2013 representing Sh. Bansal, (i.e. Respondent number 2) and

threatened him that his children would not get admission in any school.

Petitioner was also threatened to not interact with any media person.

Petitioner felt intimidated and contacted a social worker; who reported

the matter to the police by e-mail dated April 28, 2013.

21) The petitioner carves indulgence of this Hon’ble Commission for

appropriate directions so as to protect fundamental rights of the

petitioner including the Right to Life, Equality Before Law, Freedom of

Speech and Protection from Discrimination on the basis of Caste.

22) That it is a fit case in which this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased

to intervene and/or initiate other legal proceedings. The matter is also of

vital general importance, affecting not only the petitioner but the entire

SC/ST population who are discriminated w.r.t. getting admission for their

children in Public Schools under the RTE/EWS category, and therefore

requires intervention of this Hon'ble Commission.

PRAYER

23) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed, that in view of the facts mentioned

above this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to allow the following

relief:-

I. Issue suitable orders/ directions/ instruction directing the respondents to

ensure the rightful benefit of admission of child Harman Jot (DOB 16-01-

2010) S/o Surinder Kumar in Delhi Public School, the neighbourhood

school of village Palsora under the seats reserved for Schedule Castes

(Under Disadvantaged Group of RTE), Economically Weaker Section

(EWS) and/or for Disadvantages Groups under the provisions of Right to

Education Act and/or the scheme of Chandigarh Administration for EWS.

II. For passing suitable orders/ directions/ instruction to penalise the

respondents and compensate the complainant/ petitioner suitable under

the provisions of the Act “Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes