Comment

Comment by ekta batra on February 19, 2013 at 3:21pm

NATIONAL VICTOR I P EXTN RESULT IS OUT

Comment by Sharad Bansal on February 19, 2013 at 3:06pm

@ Mr. Atul Gupta, giving opinion/sharing views is one thing and to defame is another. May be you and me are aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, we have every right to criticize the judgement but we do not have right to criticize the conduct of judges in their personal capacity. What you have posted is the comment on the CONDUCT OF JUDGES and not the judgement itself. You should apologize for what you have done instead of challenging me to lodge F.I.R. 

Comment by atul gupta on February 19, 2013 at 3:06pm

Mr sharad Bansal, I apologise if yu are interpreting my opinion in wrong spirit. In my view court clearly changed its earlier stand and upheld centre affidavit by countering its own observations in this matter. anybody affected by this decision would infer in same way as i did.pls try to understand my opinion in that spirit......

Comment by atul gupta on February 19, 2013 at 3:00pm

I would like to clarify to those who are admiring high court decision. First high court is not law making body but it can pressurise concerned parties to adhere to right spirit of law. do yu think court has justified by simply leaving things in hands of that Govt where NAC member want to make RTE applicable to nursery admissions.Court are caretakers of Law and its Right interpretation.But this time High Court has failed to interpret RTE in right sense. In delhi yu send your ward at the age of 6 or 3,just tell me. How Right to education is for 6 years old not for 3 yr old child? Seems to be illogical practically. Would any body be able to get 200 seats free in first class of any school in delhi except govt schools beacause all seats are fulfilled at nursery level itself. Yes, If minimum age of sending our child goes to 6 plus then definitely RTE is justified.Read section 45 along with RTE Mr Vikas ji yu would be having better understanding of Law.

And Mr Sharad Bansal I would like to clarify yu that i have giiven my opinion and every one has to infer his opinion on the basis of observation. What do yu think High Court took around one month to take decision on so sensitive matter and that is time bound. i think yu should see all hearings of high court in this matter and then should try to correlate all then yu can only deaw some conclusions. If yu still file a FIR then go and file.Yu are most welcome. actually it is not your fault our education system system and corruption both are responsible for this...

Comment by Sharad Bansal on February 19, 2013 at 2:55pm

@ Vikas gakhar you are absolutely correct, if Mr. Atul Gupta have the sufficient knowledge of law, he would not have taken law in his own hands.

Comment by Sharad Bansal on February 19, 2013 at 2:51pm

@ Sakshi and @ Sumit Vohra ji, please don't allow the persons like Mr. Atul Gupta to post defamatory & insulting comments against the Hon'ble Judges in the manner they like.

Please block all the accounts of persons who are using such kind of language.

Comment by Vikas gakhar on February 19, 2013 at 2:29pm

Dear @Atul Gupta, I really do not know if u have any knowledge of law, high court is not a law making body, it is only there to interpret the law and see if things adhere to law, so by passing derogatory remarks against the court, you r just one more hooligan, read the act yourself and thereafter you will realise that the decision/ verdict by high court is absolutely right and appropriate.

Comment by Anita Sahgal on February 19, 2013 at 2:08pm

I have joined this forum recently and was quite surprised at the extreme reactions from so many people. I read the points of view of parents, the moderator and also Mr Vohra. Some points and concerns were valid but most of them were emotional outbursts rather than logically reasoned arguments.

The courts have ruled against the PIL - Justice has prevailed - so many parents are relieved - I am one of them.

I would want the NGO who filed the PIL to accept the verdict and now stop their publicity blitz against the process. Thank God - most parents can sleep peacefully tonight 

Comment by Sharad Bansal on February 19, 2013 at 1:59pm

@ Mr.Atul Gupta don't use these derogatory and defamatory words against the Hon'ble Judges, apologise immediately otherwise I will lodge F.I.R. against you for committing offence u/s. 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Comment by Sakshi (Moderator) on February 19, 2013 at 1:20pm

Ongoing nursery admission process will remain unaffected: Delhi High Court

PTI | Feb 19, 2013, 11.14 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The ongoing nursery admission process in the national capital would remain unaffected as the Delhi High Court today upheld the validity of two government notifications that gave powers to private unaided schools to formulate their own criteria.

"We uphold the notifications," a bench comprising Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain said while disposing of a PIL seeking quashing of the notifications issued by the Union Human Resources Development (HRD) Ministry and the Directorate of Education (DoE) respectively.

The court also made it clear that the ongoing "nursery admission process would remain unaffected".

The court allowed the plea of the Centre that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (also known as RTE Act) is applicable to a child between the age group of 6 to 14 and that the states were free to formulate policies to govern pre-school (nursery) admission.

The bench, however, asked the HRD Ministry to consider amending the Act to include the admission of pre-school classes under the legislation to extend the benefits to children below the age of six.

The court, in its judgement said that if the issue of pre-school admissions is not included under the RTE Act, then "it would render the law meaningless".

The PIL had been filed by NGO Social Jurist, which had challenged the two notifications issued by the HRD Ministry and the Delhi government.

On November 23, 2010, the ministry had issued guidelines under the RTE Act that had allowed the schools to frame their own admission criteria, the NGO had submitted.

Later, the DoE of the Delhi government had also issued similar guidelines, it had said.

The NGO in its PIL had alleged that the notifications negated the RTE Act as the private unaided schools were allowed to formulate their own criteria for nursery admission.

The PIL had also alleged that the notifications gave "a totally free hand to all unaided recognised private schools to formulate their own nursery admission criteria based on categorisation of children...".

However, the categorisations of children in admission have specifically been barred by the RTE Act, it submitted, adding that some schools still give preference in admission on grounds such as religion, alumni and sibling.

A federation of private schools, however, had opposed the PIL, saying private institutions cannot be forced to "toe" the diktat so far as the admission process is concerned.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 39
• Next ›
• Page