Mr Vijay Kumar, Director of Education, GNCTD

Directorate of Education (Act Branch), Room No.212-A, Old Secretariat, Delhi

Sub: WP 15436-39/2004 - CM 3703/20051

in context of Order of 27.10.2004 in WP 8954-59/2003 (Master Plan Implementation Support Group & Ors v/s DDA & Ors)

Ref: Court proceedings on 21.03.20052 and letter of 09.03.20053 (enclosed)

Dear Sir,

I was present in court yesterday when it heard a clutch of cases (WP (C) 13054/2004 (Carmel Convent School v/s Director of Education), WP (C) 13097/2004 (Coordination Committee of Public Schools v/s GNCTD & Ar), WP (C) 15436-39/2004 (Action Committee of Un-aided Schools & Ors v/s Director of Education & Ors), WP (C) 16296-98/2004 (Loretto Convent School & Ors v/s Director of Education & Ors), WP (C) 16099-100/2004 (Holy Cross School & Anr v/s Director of Education & Ors), WP (C) 19784/2004 (St Xaviers Senior Secondary School v/s Director of Education), WP (C) 1778-84/2005 (St Columba’s School & Ors v/s Director of Education & Anr), WP (C) 2554-55/2005 (Independent School Federation v/s Delhi Administration & Ors), WP (C) 1704/2005 (Swami Hariharanand Pub School v/s GNCTD & Anr)) in which perhaps about 350 schools have challenged the celebrated GNCTD directive of 27.04.2004 for 20% free seats for BPL / Order of 21.01.2004 for 25% free seats for EWS (in Social Jurist v/s GNCTD & Ors). It seemed to me that:

1. Petitioners are relying on Delhi School Education Act, 1973, whereas the relevant law is Delhi Development Act, 1957, since the free-seats condition is part of the neighborhood school plan / common school system as set out in the statutory Delhi Master Plan
2. They are relying on some "classification" of schools and possibility of alternative "schemes", even as the city-wide statutory scheme applies to all schools and its modification requires due process (inclusive of Public Notice) and is beyond GNCTD's powers
3. Other violations (often with GNCTD permission) on school sites are being disregarded, even as any "pragmatic" approach to the free seats condition in isolation is unlikely to work and may well involve amoral condonation of other violations of the statutory neighborhood school plan

The matters in court stand adjourned to 14.04.2005. In view also of recent Public Notices by GNCTD, MCD and DDA, routine forwarding of our letter of 03.02.2004, etc, we are constrained to infer that this free-seats litigation is driven by reluctance to rectify illegalities and inclination to shirk compliance of Order of 27.10.2004. As respondent party in all the above matters, you are requested to:

• (a) let us know forthwith if any Vasant Kunj schools are included in the Petitioner groups in these matters as well as school-wise details sought in our letter under reference
• (b) kindly note we will oppose any "scheme" short of the statutory scheme that might be negotiated between schools and GNCTD – on grounds also of bhagidaari-nexus between violaters, since your office has not cared to respond to requests (and forwardings thereof by offices of CM, CS, Education Minister, etc) since 2001, last in the letter under reference, for purposeful dialogue on our proposal (on behalf of all sections of the aggrieved community and also answering stated concerns of schools), as also set out in Annexure-1.R.-4 in our intervention application

We also suggest that you expeditiously arrange the meeting that we have requested since counsel for the Action Committee of Un-aided Schools mentioned in court that some other "scheme" that it has suggested is under consideration of CM and will be placed in court.

Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG Planner

cc:

• Vice Chairman, DDA (with request for information about steps taken for compliance of Order of 27.10.2004 and for information of CM 3703/2005, copy of which was given by our counsel to DDA counsel, Mr Jagmohan Sabharwal, on 21.03.2005)
• for information, as in letter under reference

To support planned development. To oppose unplanned development. To protect our future.