Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Resume student's online classes, High Court tells Panchkula school

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, January 7

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed a Panchkula school to resume online classes of a Class IV girl student, whose studies were allegedly disrupted following non-payment of a component of the fee. Coming to the girl’s rescue, Justice Sudhir Mittal also issued a notice of motion to the state of Haryana, the school and other respondents.

Appearing before the Bench, counsel Amar Vivek Aggarwal contended that the petitioner was not permitted to attend online classes and take examination as a certain component of the fee had not been paid. The facility of online classes was not resumed, even though the “component” was paid under protest. He added that the official respondents had failed to take any action despite repeated representations.

Giving details, Aggarwal added that the classes were arbitrarily and illegally discontinued by the school from November 10, 2021. The student’s legal and fundamental right to education was infringed in the process and studies obstructed. The counsel argued that the levy of “other charges” was illegal once the tuition fee, as demanded, had been paid. When the petitioner’s parents sought details, they were not informed for several weeks. Thereafter, the school disconnected her online classes. He added the school, under the Right to Education Act, 2009, could not deny the regular studies to the student.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement