S No. Section Draft Rule Critique

Delhi State RTE Forum1. Part I:

2 (1) (i)

Definition of Local authority No clear definition of local authority given The definition given fails to resolve the definitional issue.

2. Part II: 2 (2)

a. No clear definition of drop out childrenb. No clear guidelines for identification mechanism of

drop out. Child tracking system should be implemented (Circular should be issued)

c. No norms and standards of bridge courses

The lack of clear definition of dropout children remains

SMC-“ Provided also that the committee’s role would be limited to elementary education level”- This raises the question of the status of the existing Samiti. One hears that it would now be disbanded. However, the structures for Class XI-XII would need to be ensured.

3. Part III: 4 (1) (a) and (b)

Not in concurrence with the model rules, which mentions distance for I-V classes to be 1 km and VI-VIII classes to be 3 km

The distance norms have been brought down to be commensurate with Model Rules

4. Part III: 4 (4)

No clear definition of ‘high population density’ No definition given

5. Part III: 4 (7)

Need for inclusion of religious factors along with social and cultural

No change.

6. Part III: 5 (2)

Need for inclusion of migrant population Not incorporated

7. Part III: 5 (4)

Typo error, instead of Children with Disability Act, change to Persons with Disability Act

Children with disability is term used

8. Part III: 6 (4) (f)

Typo error, instead of territorial/jurisdiction, please change to territorial jurisdiction

Typo fixed

9. Part IV: 8 (1)

a. The school should be reimbursed on the basis of actual running cost of Government schools

b. Need for establishing a verification mechanism for the reimbursement of expenditure

c. Need for verification mechanism of no. of children attending the private school under EWS quota against what may be claimed by the school

No change in status

10. Part IV: 9 (c)

Not in concurrence with the model rules which clearly says that ‘declaration of the age of the child by the parent or guardian’ can be consider as proof of age along with other documents

Mention of affidavit removed

11. Part IV: 12 (1) (c)

There should be inclusion of an appeal process for schools in case of order of withdrawal of recognition by the DDE/ Director of Education.

The appeal could be to either to the SCPCR or NCPCR

No such mechanism has been delineated.

12. Part V: 13 (1)

a. What is the basis of fixing the number of members to be 15?

b. As per the RTE Act Section 21 (1), the draft Delhi rules mention no clear guidelines on election process of the SMC

c. The election process should also include equal representation of Primary and Upper Primary parent members

• Number of members reduced to 14.

• No mention of elections remains.

• No provision of breakup of primary and upper primary members

13. Part V: 13 (4)

a. Not in concurrence with model rule, which clearly mentions, ‘Committee shall elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the parent members’

b. No clear mention of the quorum of the SMC. The minimum number of members should be 2/3rd of the total members to constitute the quorum

Discrepancy remains. No mention of quorum

14. Part V: 13 (5)

Not in concurrence with the model rule, which clearly mentions, ‘Committee shall meet once a month’

Discrepancy remains.

15 Part V: 13 (8)

As per the Delhi draft rules, which is proposing both the Chairperson and the Convener to be Principal and teacher respectively, and also by keeping the signing authority to be either Chairperson or Vice Chairperson (parent member), and Convener, the signing powers will be ultimately get vested in the hands of the school authority instead by being with the

Discrepancy remains

parent members.16. Part V:

13As per the RTE Act Section 21 (1), the draft Delhi rules mention no clear guidelines on election process of the SMC

Discrepancy remains

17. Part V: 6

The SMC should also have recommendatory powers for punitive actions against school authorities

Mention of smaller working groups removed. Original point otherwise continues to hold true.

18. Part V: 14 (2)

The SMC should make plans for two years, as the tenure of a SMC is two years. This plan period and tenure period of SMC should be in sync with each other, otherwise, planning and implementation of the School Development Plan for subsequent SMC will get difficult

No change from draft rules

19. Part VI: 15

Minimum Qualification for the Purposes of Section 23 (1)

The minimum qualification of the teachers should be as per National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)

Problem resolved through reference to the Central Government’s rules (pt 16)

20. Part VI: 18

Not mentioned in Delhi Draft rules

According to model rules, Section 18 (3) says:

(3) The scales of pay and allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other prescribed benefits of teachers, including those employed for the purpose of imparting special training as specified in Section 4, shall be that of regular teachers, and at par for similar work and experience.

Remains deleted.

19. Maintaining PTR. Sanctioned strength shall be notified by the Government or LA, as the case may be by…. PROVIDED that the government or LA, as the case may be shall, within three months of such notification, re-deploy teachers of schools having a strength in excess of the sanctioned strength prior to

such notification.

The necessity for teacher redeployment is understandable. However, it is not clear how this clause would operate in practice. Would the rules justify the continued absence of teachers in the schools if the redeployment fails to happen?

21. Part VI: 20

No mention of Grievance Redressal mechanism for teachers for the purposes of section 24(3)

According to the model rules,

20 (1) The School Management Committee constituted under section 21 shall be the first level of grievance redressal of teachers of schools specified therein.(2) The State Government shall constitute School Tribunals at the State, District and Block levels which would act as the grievance redressal mechanism for the teachers.

“The Government may prescribe the grievance redressal mechanism for teachers by notification from time to time”. The resolution on this conflict has, consequently, not been ensured.

22. Part VI: 20 (1)

The section 20 (1) does not mention of the violation provision as per model rules

According to the model rules:(2) If any person of the State Government or the local authority violates the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 25, he or she shall be personally liable for disciplinary action.

Remains deleted

23. Part VI: 20

Maintaining of Pupil-Teacher Ratio in each school for the purposes of Section 25

(Could be part of circulars/notification/orders)a. A minimum of an annual review of the PTR for every

school needs to be done and redeployment of excess teacher undertaken

b. EO to report incidents of teachers vacancies within a week of said vacancies arising to ensure immediate action is taken to fill then the same

c. All teachers vacancies to be filled within a maximum of 90 days

d. In the meantime, roster of excess teachers above the sanctioned posts to be maintained at zonal level to fill existing vacancies

e. To maintain a excess pool of 10 % teachers