I have filed an application for intervention in Social
Jurist free-seats PIL in which further directions were
given on 18/08/05, with purpose of ensuring that order
of 27/10/04 (in mpisg matters) is read with its order
of 20/01/04.
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/f/050823
My contention is that free-seats condition is an
instrumentality of DMP-2001 Neighbourhood School Plan
(NSP itself being instrumentality for common school
system as proposed by Kothari Commission). Order of
20/01/04 did not contain directions for action against
ubiquitous violation of free-seats condition by
schools but for GNCTD to, in effect, put in place the
enabling NSP for its compliance. Order of 27/10/04
directs action against violations impeding NSP and
specifically notes also violations by GNCTD. As such,
it complements Order of 20/01/04 and favours a
different approach for its compliance than the one
being pursued in its name since early 2004 and being
urged again now.
I find resonance in Supreme Court remarks about quota
in colleges. It has been asking for law to allow quota
and political/ngo activists are criticising its latest
verdict against quota for, I suppose, rudely reminding
them the ball is still in their court. High Court
order of 20/01/04 had asked GNCTD to make Rules
(legislative task, to operationalise existing law) for
integrating 25% EWS in schools, instead of which it
issued a directive for 20% BPL quota that they have
all been celebrating (and demanding in name of CSS in
education Bill) and even after it has proved to be
illusory not asking for the Rules that never got made.
And Attorney General and Additional Solicitor General,
who were reportedly at pains to explain to a livid
Supreme Court, have both featured also in the school
matters in Delhi.
The politics v/s law debate is very uninspiring.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Jurist free-seats PIL in which further directions were
given on 18/08/05, with purpose of ensuring that order
of 27/10/04 (in mpisg matters) is read with its order
of 20/01/04.
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/f/050823
My contention is that free-seats condition is an
instrumentality of DMP-2001 Neighbourhood School Plan
(NSP itself being instrumentality for common school
system as proposed by Kothari Commission). Order of
20/01/04 did not contain directions for action against
ubiquitous violation of free-seats condition by
schools but for GNCTD to, in effect, put in place the
enabling NSP for its compliance. Order of 27/10/04
directs action against violations impeding NSP and
specifically notes also violations by GNCTD. As such,
it complements Order of 20/01/04 and favours a
different approach for its compliance than the one
being pursued in its name since early 2004 and being
urged again now.
I find resonance in Supreme Court remarks about quota
in colleges. It has been asking for law to allow quota
and political/ngo activists are criticising its latest
verdict against quota for, I suppose, rudely reminding
them the ball is still in their court. High Court
order of 20/01/04 had asked GNCTD to make Rules
(legislative task, to operationalise existing law) for
integrating 25% EWS in schools, instead of which it
issued a directive for 20% BPL quota that they have
all been celebrating (and demanding in name of CSS in
education Bill) and even after it has proved to be
illusory not asking for the Rules that never got made.
And Attorney General and Additional Solicitor General,
who were reportedly at pains to explain to a livid
Supreme Court, have both featured also in the school
matters in Delhi.
The politics v/s law debate is very uninspiring.
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs