Nursery Admissions in Delhi NCR 2025-26
Form Dates | Admission Criteria | Results | Fee Details | List of All Schools
lets go legal way on todays decision
I am going to take up the matter. Anyone joining is welcome. Pl let me know by tomorrow EoD
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by pallavi sharma on
-
i am in only if we are against alumni not sibling, if i will have second kid i think then both should be in same school.. but alumni is somthing wrong i feel.
-
-
-
So A sibling is not a kid only the first child is kid ??? How nice !! Even I did not have a seat till 7th of march when the first list was out on 1st Feb during my first child's admission so don't feel that you are the only one who is going through this stress.
-
-
-
Right. All the sibling beneficiaries have gone through the process of admitting their first child and all those admitting their first child will be eligible to get the benefit of sibling for the second child. To that extent, the sibling points are non-discriminatory.
Everyone has a right to approach the Court if they feel aggrieved. However, considering that the LG guidelines had been challenged before a single bench, which went to a double bench and then to the SC, all of which turned down the petition, and also the observations of the double bench in transfer points case, the fresh plea is not likely to succeed - not at least this year.
-
-
-
Sibling is a valid point. Even though I am applying for my first child. But still I feel sibling point should be there.
-
-
-
DPS VV had a total of 216 seats. 54 Seats for EWS + 22 Seats for Staff & Girl Child + 90 Seats for Sibling & Alumni = 166 Seats, OR 77% seats "Reserved" . . . .
DPS EOK had a total of 180 Seats. 45 Seats for EWS + 18 Seats for Staff & Girl Child + 79 Seats for Sibling & Alumni = 142 Seats, OR 79% seats "Reserved" . . . .
DPS VK had a total of 200 Seats. 50 Seats for EWS + 20 Seats for Staff & Girl Child + 55 Seats for Sibling & Alumni = 125 Seats, OR 63% seats "Reserved" . . . .
MIS Hauz Khas had a total of 120 Seats. 30 Seats for EWS + 12 Seats for Staff & Girl Child + 74 Seats for Sibling & Alumni = 116 Seats, OR 97% seats "Reserved" . . . .Where is the equality ?? Law also says no direct / indirect reservation for more than 50% of the available opportuinties . . . And the above is only a snapshot . . .
-
-
-
Very valid point
-
-
Permalink Reply by Amit Gaba on
-
DPS EOK is 100% reserved for Sibling and Alumni. In fact there will be a lottery for Alumni, forget about 70 Pointers.
-
-
-
Sibling and Alumni should be fought against...if at all these should exist....they should exist as capped quotas...
-
-
-
Do you all ppl Know that by new order of High court again and again, Only schools are taking benefit for the same and manipulating the list and creating confusion among all of us.
Most of the schools are not clarifying the list and there is no RTI act implemented on the schools to get right information
-
-
-
This thread is going all over the places. Let me try to add more in the mix ; - )
Here is my observation about each of the broader policy points (persona views, not expecting everyone to agree to it but appreciate if someone enlightens me wherever I am wrong):
Quota:
25% EWS: In theory agree to it since govt allotted land to schools at subsidized rates. What should happen is that a full proof (and fool proof) system need to be designed to ensure that benefit goes to the right and needy person only.
Conclusion: Quota is fine, mechanism need to be addressed.
5% Staff quota: Have counter opinion on this. One teacher may provide undue treatment to a kid if he is son/daughter of other fellow colleague. But then, even private companies have favorable treatment for staffs. A bad example but Big Bazar has extra discount points for staffers.
Conclusion: Is not good for the kid but can be tolerated in the name of HR practice.
5% Girl child quota: Intent must be to promote a social cause (considering the sex ratio) but to me its more of a tokenism. Will not be THE factor to enable a social change. Truth of the day is that this 5% quota is at the cost of some other boy childs bad luck.
Conclusion: Remove the tokenism.
Point system:
70 Points for Neighborhood 8 KMs: Logical keeping in mind the overall spread of schools across city. Counter argument may be that its convenient for the kid to go to a school near to his place hence a slab system of distance. My take; there are good number of areas where no good school is in nearby areas or only 1 or 2. Some pockets of south delhi or Mayur vihar wont be able to accommodate everyone, if everyone want to leave near to good school for better admission chances.
Conclusion: keep it that way.
20 Points for Sibling: Concept is beneficial for the parent + first child + 2 child. Counter argument may be that it blocks the way for first/only child. I admit that it comes in the way, therefore, this point should have some short of upper limit (just for example, maximum 10% seats).
Now the argument from two different directions: Siblings but were not lucky in the %quota. Response: You still were in the advantageous position with that 10% seats and still has a chance to compete with rest of the group.
First/Only child group: Sibling has eaten away 10% of the seats. Agree but this is much better than the previous arrangement where they claiming every possible seat by merit of sibling points. Other point, even if we do away with this 10% point there still are chances that the first/only child may not get selected.
Conclusion: Points are ok but only to a certain limit.
Parent alumni: All lovers of this, just give some consideration to the other impacts it may create. After schooling your kid want to go to IIT/IIM/AIMS but the seats are blocked for parent alumni. Its dynasty system and no amount of argument can justify it.
Conclusion: Do away with it.
-
About
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
© 2025 Created by Sumit Vohra (Webmaster).
Powered by
