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) (2) Principal, Delhi Public School, Sector 40, Chandigarh 160 040 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 schools 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-everyclass 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 16-012010) 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