This story is from October 27, 2012

Private schools refuse to foot panel’s bills

Stung by a court-appointed committee’s recommendation that private unaided schools must refund excess fee charged from students, the schools are now unwilling to foot the committee’s expenses.
Private schools refuse to foot panel’s bills
NEW DELHI: Stung by a court-appointed committee’s recommendation that private unaided schools must refund excess fee charged from students, the schools are now unwilling to foot the committee’s expenses.
In a fresh application filed before the Delhi HC, the “action committee of private unaided schools” wants the court to recall or modify its order where it had split the expenses incurred by the committee between schools and government in the ratio of 90:10.
1x1 polls
It claims the fee fixed for members of the committee, that includes a retired HC judge, is not justified at Rs 50,000 – 25,000 per hearing — since education is regarded as “charitable in nature where profiteering is prohibited.”
The schools have even repudiated their own lawyer and claim the counsel representing the action committee before HC was not authorized to concede to foot the committee’s bill, and on that count the schools are not bound to abide by it.
In August this year after setting up the committee headed by Justice Anil Dev Singh, HC had pointed out that the job of the committee will be primarily to sift through accounts of these schools numbering around 200, so they should foot the bill for its smooth functioning. When the court prodded the schools to bear the expenses, they agreed, albeit reluctantly.
Recently, the committee submitted its findings, saying fee hike by most schools is unjustified since meeting the increased salary grade of its teachers as per the Sixth Pay Commission was only a pretext to increase the fee. It said schools must immediately repay the increased fee with interest. The court is yet to take a call on the report. Apart from questioning the per hearing fee for the chairperson and members, the schools have argued they never sought scrutiny of their accounts but have been saddled with the committee.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA