Comment

Comment by Vivek Upadhyay on March 7, 2014 at 2:23pm

@ Raman, I am talking abt the ones who forged to make their case  under tfr pt sysm and not the ones who were genuine. All problems started from there. We all knw that in today's world it is very easy to access transfer letter printed on the company letter head. These kinds of illegal manipulation is a punishable offence but now see they are again rewarded with fresh draw on the cost of honest parents who submitted their application under 70 point system or even genuine tfr cases. We are paying for our honesty! Welcome to India...

Comment by Raman Singh on March 7, 2014 at 2:11pm

@ Vivek , all the best. I do not agree to any fresh PILs against the new order. Read my earlier post where it is clearly apparent that Tfr pointers got the wrong end of the bargain.

Genuine Tfr pointers did nothing wrong. Govt gave them the points, and then they were scrapped. Why penalize genuine Tfr pointers for Govt's mistakes.

I think this is where the honorable HC saw merit in this plea. So, this may be hard on 70 pointers selected in first/second draw. Remember, Tfr 75 pointers also lost their confirmed seats.

Comment by Vivek Upadhyay on March 7, 2014 at 1:45pm

@Raman, I totally agree with you, 5 pts on tfr cases where mostly manipulated with forge document and fake supporting. These kinds of illegal manipulation is a punishable offence. I guess there is meeting scheduled today at 8 PM in District Center for west delhi's n dwarka's parents who are now feeling cheated with the new order!

Comment by Raman Singh on March 7, 2014 at 1:36pm

Parents should have complained to DoE helpline. Imagine if no parent deposited the fees before 15 Mar, then school would be forced to follow guidelines.

But as it is in India, there is always someone ready to go via the back door. This gives schools the opportunity to exploit.

why only schools, this goes on everywhere. Prime reason why we can not get rid of corruption.

Comment by Raman Singh on March 7, 2014 at 1:28pm

@ Kailash - Parents who paid fees did this at their own risk. this was against the guidelines. Fee submissions should be only after the first list 15 March.

Remember, HC can not change guidelines. It is the onus of Govt / LG (while there is no govt). court is to ensure everyone gets equal opportunity as per the agreed guidelines.

during first PIL, court merely asked the DoE to justify Tfr category points. They voluntarily removed the 5 points.

During second PIL, court sees merit in the argument that all 70 pointers should get equal opportunity to the open seats.

Now, there might be a third PIL challenging Alumni/ sibling/ distance criteria. Again, court will not change the guidelines, DoE can stick to it and then court can not give any ruling on it. court only follows the law. It is govt responsibility to make the law.

Comment by Manvinder Singh on March 7, 2014 at 1:18pm

For all parents who are looking for admissions for their kids in school/ colleges.  

Donations Ke Side Effects......

This is what our Indian Education system is becoming...

It's tough being a student in India today, with it becoming next to impossible getting a seat in a good college despite getting top grades. It's even tougher being the parent of the kid with good grades and no seats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZlnZwDcPjY

Comment by Manvinder Singh on March 7, 2014 at 1:15pm

For all parents who are looking for admissions for their kids in school/ colleges.    ......must watch                                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZlnZwDcPjY

Comment by MUTHURAMAN C on March 7, 2014 at 1:12pm

@Raman Singh; Good Analysis. Justification given by High Court on yesterday's order is valid one.

Comment by Raman Singh on March 7, 2014 at 1:08pm

Imagine Scenario1, presented in court

Open seats after Siblings + Alumni	100
Applicants	1000
Tfr cases	10
Original 70 Pointers	90
Chances in First draw	90 / (1000-10)	9.09%
Chances in Second draw	10 / (1000-90+10)	1.09%

Tfr pointers only got 1.09% chance of a seat.

While majority of 70 pointers got two chances 9.09% + 1.09% = 10.18%

Now imagine scenario 2, by reversing the the tfr and 70 pointers numbers

Open seats after Siblings + Alumni	100
Applicants	1000
Tfr cases	90
Original 70 Pointers	10
Chances in First draw	10 / (1000-90)	1.10%
Chances in Second draw	90 / (1000-10+90)	8.33%

Now Tfr pointers got 8.33% chance of a seat.

Majority of 70 pointers got two chances 1.10% + 8.33 % = 9.43%.

The difference is small (just 1.10%) but this can not be ignored considering the situation, every single % point counts.

Genuine Tfr pointers did nothing wrong. Govt gave them the points, and then they were scrapped. Why penalize genuine Tfr pointers for Govt's mistakes.

I think this is where the honorable HC saw merit in this plea. So, this may be hard on 70 pointers selected in first/second draw. Remember, Tfr 75 pointers also lost their confirmed seats.

As said by the court, inconvenience can not be the reason for injustice.

Comment by Abhishek Singh on March 7, 2014 at 1:08pm

@SANGEETA GUPTA  : Guidelines were issued by LG on 18/12/2013 and not by AAP government.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 961
• 962
• 963
• 964
• 965
• …
• 1125
• Next ›
• Page