any feedback of The Frank Anthony Public School ? what is the overall rating and quality of school ?

DRAW LIST FRANK ANTONY PUBLIC SCHOOL LAJPAT NAGAR,

http://fapsnewdelhi.net/admission/list_for_print.aspx?listno=2

http://fapsnewdelhi.net/admission/list_for_print.aspx?listno=1

http://fapsnewdelhi.net/admission/list_for_print.aspx?listno=3

http://fapsnewdelhi.net/admission/list_all_valid_applications.aspx

@Shilipka: i do not remember exactly but it was 70+ as far as i remember.

How is Delhi International School?. Especially the one newly built up in Rohini. Any one having experience with Dwarka branch, please share.

@anju bala: the draw of lots was also sent to selected students.  i had not joined this forum then so i am not sure if somebody posted on this but draw took on 30th Jan 2013. shortlist for draw was 45 points. there were some confirmed admissions like 60 and above

@Deepak: thanks

NURSERY ADMISSIONS CRITERIA PIL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P. (C) 8533 OF 2010

Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group                                             ….Petitioner

Versus

GNCTD and Anr.                                                                     …Respondents

SUBMISSIONS BY ADV ASHOK AGARWAL FOR SOCIAL JURIST

1.       Section 13 read with S. 2(o) of the RTE Act has been dealt with in the     judgment dated 13.07.2012 in Social Jurist vs. GNCTD and anr. W.P. (C) No.7796/2011by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and it    has been categorically held in Para 24 of the judgment that:

“It is thus clear that the prohibition in Section 13 of subjecting a child to screening procedure during admission is applicable only to admission at the entry level which is Nursery or Class I.”

2.       Section 13 read with 2 (o) applies to all children at the entry class whether it is Class I or pre-primary/pre-school, as the case may be, in         all the schools falling under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act. These   Sections do not only apply to EWS students from the entry level in           terms of Section 12 (1) c but also to all other non-EWS students     admitted otherwise. Limiting these Sections in application to EWS    students alone would militate against the very nature of these      provisions of the RTE Act, 2009. Therefore, the provision of Section      13 read with S. 2 (o) would apply to all the children admitted to pre-  primary classes.

3.       Assuming, though not admitted that pre-primary classes are not     covered by the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, the same would lead          to an anomalous situation where children are admitted in pre-primary          classes by subjecting them to screening procedure and thereafter       promoting them to higher classes. A 6-year old child so promoted to           Class I would have already been screened at the pre-primary level and     therefore, the prohibition contained in Section 13 against screening   would completely lose its meaning. In such a situation, the only        solution to the problem is either not to treat pre-primary classes as part        of the main school and admit all students afresh to class I by          employing random method instead of promoting them from pre-   primary to Class I, or to apply the provisions of RTE Act to entry        level admissions from where children are sought to be promoted to         primary level.

4.       Many of the unaided schools run two years’ pre-primary classes.   Children are admitted in the nursery class (entry level) and then promoted to classes above nursery class. There are other schools that          run one year pre-primary class where children are admitted and then           promoted to higher classes. Other schools run from class I and admit       children to class I and then promote them to higher classes.           Wherever pre-primary classes are run, they are not only treated as part       and parcel but also deemed to be a part and parcel of the main school          for all intents and purposes. In a Division Bench judgment of this Hon’ble court dated 27.01.2012 in Social Jurist vs. GNCTD and anr.          reported in 190 (2012) DLT 406 (DB), this position is accepted. The      relevant para 28 is reproduced below:

“28. Another important statement which is made is that the legislation is anchored in the belief that the values of quality, social justice and democracy and the creation of just and humane society can be achieved only through provision of  inclusive elementary education to all.  No doubt, in the definition of ‘child’ contained in Section 2(c) of the Act, age of 6 to 14 years is stipulated.  Likewise, ‘elementary education’ defined in Section 2(f) of the Act means the education from first class to eighth class.  Even compulsory education which is the obligation of the appropriate Government is to provide free and elementary education to every child of the age of 6 to 14 years.  However, for our purpose, Section11 becomes important.  This provision deals with Pre-School education and casts an obligation upon the appropriate Government to make necessary arrangements for providing Pre-School education for such children.  Therefore, it cannot be said that RTE Act does not deal with Preschool education at all.  In order to answer the issue at hand, the provision of Section 11 has to be read in conjunction with Section 12 thereof.  Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 puts an obligation on the schools to admit atleast to the extent of 25% of the strength of the class, children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood and provide free and elementary education till its completion.  Proviso thereto is a very significant provision.  It states that wherever a school imparts PreSchool education, provisions of clause (a) to (c) are applied for admission even to Pre-School education.  The effect of this proviso is that 25% children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups are to be admitted even at Pre-School stage by those schools which are having Pre-school education.  What follows from this provision?  It means that 25% of the children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups are to be admitted to Pre-school and they are to continue for further studies as well at Pre Primary level and when they attain the age of six years and are admitted to class 1.  This continuum has to be maintained.  There cannot be a situation where different children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups are admitted at Pre-School stage and those children are replaced by some other  children belonging to same section of society when it comes to primary school, or for that matter class 1 at the age of six.  That was not even suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner as this kind of a situation would amount to negating the entire concept of free and compulsory education coupled with obligations on the schools to provide such education to 25% children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups.  When children admitted at Pre-school level and allowed to be promoted to Pre Primary class, can there be a different treatment for the remaining 75% children?  The answer has to be in the negative, as otherwise such a situation would be fraught with many dangers and not conducive to the education of those children.” (Emphasis supplied)

5.       If the argument of the schools that pre-primary classes are not covered    by the provisions of the RTE Act is accepted, in the respectful         submissions of the petitioner, this would lead to an   absurdity with      respect to several key provisions of the Act.

For instance, Section 13, besides prohibiting screening of children, also prohibits charging of capitation fee. Going by the above assumption, schools would get a free hand to charge capitation fee at the pre-primary level and there would be no occasion for Section 13 to come into play for preventing the schools from charging capitation fee which is usually charged at the time of admission itself.

Similarly, Section 16 prohibits holding back or expulsion of the child before completion of elementary education. The children at the pre-primary level would also be robbed of this protection in such case.

Further, Section 17 bans corporal punishment. It would lead to a paradoxical situation if the Act is interpreted to deprive children of very tender age, below 6 years, from corporal punishment and protecting only children between 6 and 14. These sections seek to protect the children in general and children below 6 are all the more sensitive. Therefore, they are in greater need of protection. Adopting such an interpretation would also mean that children in the same institution are treated differently, with one set of rules applying to children at pre-primary level and another set at the primary level, with the latter being more favorable to children. Such dichotomy within the same school itself is unacceptable and discriminatory. If the pre-primary classes are inseparable from the main school, the students admitted at the entry level of pre-primary, whether in the EWS or General category, are also inseparable. It would be illogical and also discriminatory if the general students admitted are treated differently from the EWS  in the matter of applying the provisions of Section 13 read with S. 2 (o) of the RTE Act. It is an established canon of statutory interpretation that any interpretation that leads to absurdity should be avoided.

6.       By going into the scheme of the RTE Act as a whole, it becomes clear      that the Act is not restricted to the age group 6-14.

(i) For instance, Section 9 enumerates the duties of the local authority. Clause (d) thereof reads as under:

9. Duties of the local authority.—Every local authority shall—

(d) maintain records of children up to the age of fourteen years residing within its jurisdiction, in such manner as may be prescribed;

In conjunction therewith, Section 38 enumerates the power of appropriate Government to make rules. Section 38 (2) (c) thereof reads as under:

38. Power of the appropriate Government to make rules.—(1) the appropriate Government may, by notification, make rules, for carrying out the provisions of this Act .

(2) in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--

(c) the manner of maintenance of records of children up to the age of 14 years, under clause (d) of Section 9.

(ii) Further Section 11 reads:

11. Appropriate Government to provide for pre-school education.—with a view to prepare children above the age of three years for elementary education and to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years, the appropriate Government may make necessary arrangement for providing free pre-school education for such children.

(iii) Section 2 (ee) defines a “child with disability”. Section 3 (3) as inserted by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act (30 of 2012) extends the right to free and compulsory education to children with disability upto the age of 18 years as available to them under Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995, Section 26.

Section 3 (3) is reproduced as under:

(3) A child with disability referred to in Sub-clause (A) of clause (ee) of section 2 shall, without prejudice to the provisions of the Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995, and a child referred to in cub-clauses (B) and (C) of clause (ee) of Section 2, have the same rights to pursue free and compulsory elementary education which children with disabilities have under the provisions of Chapter V of the Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995.

Section 26 (a) in Chapter V of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 is reproduced as under:

“CHAPTER V

EDUCATION

26. Appropriate Governments and local authorities to provide children with disabilities free education, etc. - The appropriate Governments and the local authorities shall-

a.     ensure that every child with a disability has access to free education in an appropriate environment till he attains the age of eighteen years;” (Emphasis supplied)

thus, a child with disability shall have a right to education between 0-18 years age under the RTE Act, even her/she is admitted under the general category of remaining 75% percent. Thus, screening shall not be permissible in case of a disabled child even if admitted under the general category and the situation cannot be otherwise for non-disabled children.

7.       It is submitted that the observations made by Hon’ble  Justice        Radhakrishnan in his dissenting judgment in Society for Unaided         Private Schools of Rajasthan versus Union of India and Anr. reported           in (2012) 6 SCC 1 in paras 278 and 279 thereof are in the nature of     mere a recording of the fact that the concerned notification was placed     before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench. No observations have been      made therein with respect to the validity of the said notification. No positive statement has been made with regard to the said notification, which could have been regarded as even an obiter to bind this Hon’ble           Court. Merely recording of the fact that the notification was placed          before the Apex Court has no effect upon the adjudication of validity    of the said notification by this Hon’ble Court. It is needless to mention    that the said notification was not in question before the Supreme         Court and therefore the Hon’ble Court did not find it useful to go into     the merits thereof.

8.       It is respectfully submitted that the RTE Act, 2009 sets at rest all   controversies and treat all children equal   to each other in the        matter of admissions in class I or pre- primary as the case may be, in         all unaided private schools. Section 13 read with           section 2 (o) of the         RTE Act, 2009, is a revolutionary provision of law          attempting to take          us from the feudal society to the modern society or in other           words, from the exclusive education system to the inclusive education     system. It is submitted that the impugned orders of the Centre and the      State Governments have given free hand to all the unaided recognised       private schools to formulate their own nursery admission criteria          based on categorization of the children for admission in the schools. It           is respectfully submitted that the said orders are contrary to the     provisions of RTE Act, 2009 and would only lead to further   commercialization of education at the cost of hapless parents/students.        It is submitted that such categorization of children is impermissible       under RTE Act, 2009.

Ashok Agarwal

How is Delhi International School?. Especially the one newly built up in Rohini. Any one having experience with Dwarka branch, please share.

@Sakshi : Please advise what is better: Bhatnagar VK or Greenfields S J Enclave ?