Apart from receiving donation from the stake holders for admission, the school is also facing allegations on ground of fraudulent activities in connection with the scholarship amount given to poor students.
- IIM Bill 2017 expected to be tabled today at Lok Sabha
- JNU refuses media reports about reduction in academic seats
- Education for girls: HRD ministry forms a sub-panel under CABE
- Teachers protest against West Bengal Universities and Colleges Bill 2017
- CBSE NEET UG 2017: All you need to know
Following the various irregularities and the alleged collection of donation from parents by the staff of certain government schools for smooth admission, the Delhi High Court has sought a response from the government on whether it has made any inquiry on the matter or not.
The lawyer representing Delhi government was asked by Justice Manmohan of Delhi High Court to take instructions on why the Directorate of Education (DoE) has not till date complied with the high court’s direction of August 24, 2016.
The High Court in August last year issued a direction to inquire into the allegations against a government-aided school and listed the matter for hearing on March 1.
More on the news:
- The court was hearing a plea filed by advocate Anup Kumar Das, seeking contempt action against the DoE official concerned and the chief secretary of Delhi government for not carrying out the inquiry and taking a decision within three months as was ordered by the high court in August last year
- According to the petitioners, Arun Kashyap and M R Mahapatra, even the office of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had written to DoE in January last year to conduct an inquiry into the allegations and give a report within 15 days, but nothing was done
- Thereafter, they had moved a plea in the high court for directions to DoE to take action against the school and its staff and it was on this petition that the August 24, 2016 order was passed.
Apart from the aforementioned malpractices, the school is also facing allegations on ground of fraudulent activities in connection with the scholarship amount given for uniform and stationery to poor students.
The school administration was also accused by the petitioners of continuing to claim from DoE the salary of a head clerk who had gone on medical leave and subsequently joined a private firm.