Secretary, MoHRD

Sub: Delhi High Court Order dated 26/05/05 in matters pertaining to free seats in schools

Ref: Letter of 23/06/04, also forwarded by President’s P1/B-224072 of 29/06/04, for consideration of note of 16/06/04, sought again wrt non-compliance of court order of 27/10/04 in our W.P. (C) 8954-59/2003 / apprehensions of sub-optimal use of 2% cess, etc, vide letter of 04/02/051 (enclosed as Encl.1)

Dear Sir,

Delhi High Court Order of 26/05/05 impleads GoI through yourself in a bunch of matters, viz, W.P.(C) 15436/2004 (The Action Committee of Un-aided Schools v/s Director of Education & Ors), W.P.(C) 13054/2004 (Carmel Convent School v/s Director of Education & Ors), W.P.(C) 13097/2004 (Coordination Committee of Public Schools v/s GNCTD & Ar), W.P.(C) 16099 - 100/2004 (Holy Cross School & Ar v/s Director of Education & Ors), W.P.(C) 16296 - 98/2004 (Loretto Convent School & Ors v/s Director of Education & Ors), W.P.(C) 1704/2005 (Swami Hariharanand Public School v/s GNCTD & Ar), W.P.(C) 1778 - 84/2005 (St. Columba’s School & Ors v/s Director of Education & Ors), W.P.(C) 7168-69/2005 (South Delhi Education Society & Ar v/s GNCTD & Ors), W.P.(C) 11127/2004 (Victor Public Secondary School v/s GNCTD & Ors), W.P.(C) 11158/2004 (Dev Public School v/s GNCTD & Ors), W.P.(C) 17181/2004 (Canterbury Model School v/s Director of Education & Ors), W.P.(C) 19784/2004 (St. Xaviers Senior Secondary School & Ar v/s Director of Education & Ors), W.P.(C) 2554-55/2005 (Independent School Federation of India & Ar v/s The State of Delhi Administration & Ors), W.P.(C) 7392/2005 (Neo Gursikh Education Society v/s GNCTD & Ors), W.P.(C) 13020/2004 (Ramesh Chandra v/s Secretary Ministry of Education & Ors) and W.P.(C) 12999/2004, W.P.(C) 13000/2004, W.P.(C) 13001/2004, W.P.(C) 13002/2004, W.P.(C) 13003/2004, W.P.(C) 13004/2004, W.P.(C) 13005/2004 (Govt School Teachers Association v/s GNCTD & Ors).

These matters, inter alia, challenge the free-seats directive issued by GNCTD pursuant to Order of 20/01/04 in W.P. (C) 3156/2002 (Social Jurist v/s GNCTD & Ors). Amidst them is our intervention, with reference to Order of 27/10/04 in our W.P (C) 8954-59/2003 (MPISG & Ors v/s DDA & Ors), mentioned in Order of 26/05/05, viz, CM 3073/20052 in W.P.(C) 15436/2004, enclosed as Encl.2.

We have seen the Order of 26/05/05 on the web only now and, with Court closed and advocates unavailable, are writing to you, in continuation of letters under reference, to request:

1. consideration of our perspective / proposal in MoHRD affidavit
2. comment by MoHRD on modifications proposed in Delhi Master Plan (DMP) provisions for schools in draft DMP-2021, for which Public Notice inviting objections/suggestions was published on 08/04/05 for 90-days, which will have elapsed by 15/07/05 when the matters are next listed
3. copy of MoHRD affidavit as soon as possible, for informed response to DMP-2021 Public Notice

Please permit us to set out the context in which we make these requests.

Order of 05/05/05 referred to in Order of 26/05/05 is unavailable on the web, but we were in court when it was passed. The direction to implead GoI arose from submissions of counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 15436/2004 about SSA and 2% cess funds and that Order of 20/01/04 required GNCTD to frame rules, a legislative task requiring GoI approval under Delhi School Education Act, 1973, not reducible to issuance of the impugned directive, already stayed (for all on 15/04/05) on submissions about it contravening other provisions of the Act. Proceedings pointed to illegality also of option of separate-shift-separate-standard schools when, after Petitioners submitted they had made a proposal for this vide letter dated 08/04/05 to Chief Minister, the Hon’ble Court observed it required amendment to Delhi School Education Act. (Illegality of free-seats quota and separate shift/standard options in terms of Delhi Development Act, 1957, is set out in our CM 3073/2005 in paras 8 & 9).

On 10/05/05 we wrote to Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, as administrator of both Acts, for ensuring authorities’ replies are consonant with their responsibilities under both and consideration of our proposal (compliant with both). On 16/05/05, GNCTD Counsel stated the Petitioners’ proposal had been rejected and we sough, wrt our letter of 10/05/05, consideration of ours. Hon’ble Court asked us to give copies of our application to both counsel again and we did and on 26/05/05 recalled it to them.

(Our proposal since 2000 is for rectification, in line with Order of 27/10/04, of impeding illegalities (cf, para-3 in our CM 3073/2005) to progressively implement the statutory DMP solution for equal access neighbourhood schools, also set out in the note at Annexure-IR/43 in our CM 3073/2005 / Encl.2.)

Meanwhile, on 08/04/05 Public Notice was published for draft DMP-2021 in which it is proposed to, in effect, downsize / abandon the DMP scheme provisions to legitimize illegalities. On 02/05/05 we wrote to DDA Principal Commissioner-cum-Secretary, with copy to Respondents in our matters (DDA, MoUD, GNCTD, MCD and Traffic Police) and others a letter saying:

• “We request, for adequate Public Notice response on this DMP2021 proposal, information about:
  • (a)steps, if any, being taken for compliance of Order of 27/10/04 in our writ petitions
  • (b) monitoring data / studies, if any, forming the basis of modifications proposed in chapter 13.2, etc
  • (c) justifications, if any, for the Social Infrastructure Sub-Group’s preference of a scheme condoning illegalities over one for their rectification in pursuit of common school system (and, if that pursuit is intentionally abandoned, justifications for that as well).
• Without the above clarifications, the manner in which efforts of citizens’ groups from all sections, as represented in the array of Petitioners in our writ petitions, in pursuit of the Master Plan scheme have been, since 2000, ignored (including in lackadaisical counter-affidavits and by disregard of Order of 27/10/04 in our writ petitions) and out-shouted (by funded NGO propaganda against the Master Plan in general and highly-publicized ineffectual diversionary NGO PIL in particular) would point to pre-orchestrated pursuit of abandonment of the scheme only to condone its violations – most exceptionable since the scheme, apart from being mandatory under Delhi Development Act, articulates Kothari Commission concept of Neighbourhood Plan and imperatives of 74th and 93rd Constitutional Amendments that have been central to Education Bill discussions and merits, in view also of Orders of Hon’ble High Court, strengthening rather than down-sizing in Master Plan 2021. We hope you will respond to our request in this perspective.”

We have repeatedly brought the DMP scheme to the attention also of MoHRD and others in context of the Education Bill, also to point out conflict between the two, last in a petition dated 03/03/03 to Rajya Sabha4

praying that the Bill not be proceeded with till preference for basing its architecture on a scheme inferior to one set out under another central law is clarified or, else, for Delhi to be excluded from its purview in view of conflict with DMP / Delhi Development Act. This petition is at Encl.3.

In matters in which GoI has now been impleaded, our CM 3073/2005 differs from the rest – in terms of Acts relied on (and underlying view of law as statutory framework for securing equitable and efficient development rather than penal code for somehow enforcing ‘inclusivity’) as well as in terms of parties, with others being ones with responsibilities to implement the statutory solution accused of failures on that count and us being intended beneficiaries of that solution aggrieved by those failures. We are convinced that the DMP scheme articulates the right to education far better than anything that the discourse has thrown up, notably its star options that, after spawning what can now unhesitatingly be called a circus with nearly no benefit, stand exposed in the instant proceedings also for illegality as well as damage done, starkly manifest in courtroom full of counsel for schools and state locked in adversarial positions in defence of illegalities while the lawful solution that schools and state were expected to jointly implement has been driven to stand poised to be abandoned, by law.

It is from this perspective that we draw attention to our CM 3073/2005 to make our requests. We are at your disposal for any clarification about ourselves or our engagements, also loosely chronicled at /site/mpisg/f

Yours sincerely

Gita Dewan Verma, MPISG Planner / intervener-applicant in CM 3073/2005

cc: for favour of information

• Hon’ble President of India (wrt to forwardings mentioned above and in our CM 3073/2005)
• Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor / DDA Chairman (wrt letter of 10/05/05 enclosing that of 02/05/05)
• Secretary General, Rajya Sabha (wrt petition of 03/03/05)
• Chairman Lok Sabha Standing Committee on Urban Development (wrt memoranda re DDA)
• AZPlan web

Encl.

1. Letter of 04/02/055 and encl letters/note of 16 & 23/06/04 (other encl in Anex-IR-2 in Encl.2) – 8 p
2. CM 3073/20056 in WP (C) 15436/2004 – 25 p
3. Petition to Rajya Sabha7 (without annexures) – 2 p

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