Content uploaded by Ambrish Dongre
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ambrish Dongre on Sep 04, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 3
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
EDITORS
Ankur Sarin
Faculty, IIM Ahmedabad
Ambrish Dongre
Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
Shrikant Wad
Research Associate (Education Policy), IIM Ahmedabad
AUTHORS/ COLLABORATORS
Ankur Sarin
Ambrish Dongre
Shrikant Wad
Shruti Ambast, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Harshad Barde, Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat
Akriti Gaur, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Ishu Gupta, IIM Ahmedabad
Avani Kapur, CPR- Accountability Initiative
Neil Maheshwari, Central Square Foundation
Sudhir Paranjape, Anudanit Shiksha Bachao Samiti
Raunaq Pradhan, Indus Action
Varun Rangarajan, Indus Action
Karan Singhal, IIM Ahmedabad
Nisha Vernekar, IIM Ahmedabad
PARTNER ORGANISATIONS
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIM-A)
is India’s premier management institute with a mission to
transform India and other countries through generating
and propagating new ideas of global signicance based on
research. Right to Education Resource Centre (RTERC)
was established in 2013 as an action research project at
the institute with the objective of ensuring ‘equality in
education’ and ‘quality education for all.’ It works closely
with multiple stakeholders such as the local government,
schools, parents, NGOs, lawyers, and educational
institutions on a variety of projects including awareness
campaigns, action research projects, academic briefs, and
project evaluation reports.
Centre for Policy Research (CPR), New Delhi has been
one of India’s leading public policy think tanks since 1973.
e Centre is a non-prot, non-partisan independent
institution dedicated to conducting research that contributes
to the production of high quality scholarship, better policies,
and a more robust public discourse about the structures and
processes that shape life in India.
Central Square Foundation (CSF), New Delhi is a
grant-making organisation and policy think-tank focused
on improving quality of school education, and learning
outcomes of children from low-income communities in
India.
Accountability Initiative (AI), New Delhi at the Centre for
Policy Research is a research initiative that works to address
challenges to government accountability. is requires an
approach that strengthens the link between citizens and
government, while also creating accountability between
decision makers and frontline service providers. As part
of its services, Accountability Initiative provides regular,
accessible, and relevant analyses of the implementation
of government programs. e focus of this analysis is
on planning, budgets, fund-ows, and decision-making
systems at the local administration level.
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi is an
independent legal policy advisory group, whose mission
is to achieve good governance in India through impacting
legislative and regulatory design.
Indus Action, New Delhi is a not-for-prot organization
founded in year 2013 with a mission ‘to facilitate enrolment
campaigns that empower choice for inclusion seats and
school education programs that mobilize community
ownership’.
e State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) report is
a collaborative eort of Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad, Centre for Policy Research New Delhi, and Central
Square Foundation, New Delhi.
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT?
Chicago, sixteenth edition:
Citation:
(Sarin, Dongre and Wad 2017)
Reference:
Sarin, Ankur, Ambrish Dongre, and Shrikant Wad. 2017. State of the Nation: RTE
Section 12(1)(c). Ahmedabad: IIM Ahmedabad.
APA, sixth edition:
Citation:
(Sarin, Dongre, & Wad, 2017)
Reference:
Sarin, A., Dongre, A., & Wad, S. (2017). State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c).
Ahmedabad: IIM Ahmedabad.
Citing a specic chapter or page:
Please follow the standard formats for edited book/ report.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RTE Resource Centre, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
We appreciate the eorts by our volunteers in helping us verify the eld-level data
post collection; the volunteers are: Soham Sarfare, ane (for Maharashtra and
Rajasthan), Varsha Nagele, Bhopal (for Madhya Pradesh), and Tejas Airodi, Bangalore
(for Karnataka). We thank Akshay Milap (FPM student, IIM Ahmedabad) for his
resourceful support in the child tracking study. We also benetted from discussions
with Isha Verma (Research Associate, IIM Ahmedabad), while working on the
academic literature.
is report could not have been completed without active support of the government
ocials, who shared relevant information and experiences with us during the eld
visits in Mumbai, Pune, Bhopal, Bangalore, Jaipur, and Gandhinagar. We are unable to
name these ocials for the condition of anonymity.
e report also benetted from support of various civil society organisations. We
thank Pranjal Singh and Riddhi Chandrawat at Abhyutthanam Society, Jaipur;
Nagasimha Rao at RTE Task Force, Bangalore; Sudhir Paranjape and K Narayan at
Anudanit Shiksha Bachao Samiti, Andheri; and Maitreyi Shankar and Harshad Barde
at Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat, Pune.
Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi
We are grateful to Mridusmita Bordoi, Ram Ratan Jat, Swapna Ramtake (all at
Accountability Initiative) for their assistance in obtaining per-student notied costs.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 7
CONTENTS
ABOUT THE AUTHORS 03
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 05
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10
FOREWORD 12
Ashish Nanda, Director, IIM Ahmedabad 12
Ashish Dhawan, Chairman, Central Square Foundation 13
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS 14
1 INTRODUCTION 15
2 ONLINE PORTALS: WHAT WORKS 21
3 GRASSROOTS OBSERVATIONS: ALIENATED CONTEXT, FLAWED DESIGN 26
4 THE 121c AND STRUGGLES IN MUMBAI 30
5 GUJARAT: SHIFTING FROM OFFLINE TO ONLINE 32
6 IMPLEMENTATION OF 121c: EARLY EVIDENCE FROM URBAN AHMEDABAD 42
7 ACCOUNTS OF ONLINE IMPLEMENTATION: RAIPUR AND LUCKNOW 52
8 LOTTERY LOGIC IN THE FOUR STATES 57
9 LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS 64
10 COSTS, COMPENSATIONS, AND CHALLENGES 69
11 A QUICK PEEK INTO REIMBURSEMENT DATA 76
12 SUGGESTIONS FOR ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION 79
13 CONCLUSION: DEEPENING ROOTS 82
ANNEXURE 85
LIST OF FIGURES AND BOX
Figure 1 : Major Stages in RTE 12(1)(c) Admission Process ..........................................................................................................21
Box 1 : Delhi HC asks for vacant seats to be disclosed online ....................................................................................................68
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Selected ndings from the earlier reports and new developments ...............................................................................17
Table 2.1 : School Registration Process for RTE 12(1)(c) in the four States ...................................................................................22
Table 2.2 : Application Process for RTE 12(1)(c) in the four States .................................................................................................23
Table 2.3 : Post-lottery Process for RTE 12(1)(c) in the four States .................................................................................................24
Table 4 : Vacancies le aer the RTE 12(1)(c) lottery ....................................................................................................................31
Table 5.1 : Admission targets set and secured in the State of Gujarat .............................................................................................32
Table 5.2 : Changes in design of implementation from manual to online process of application and admission ....................33
Table 5.3 : Changes in applicants’ experiences- from oine to online process of application and admission ..........................36
Table 6.1 : Characteristics of surveyed households and children ....................................................................................................42
Table 6.2 : Policy take up .......................................................................................................................................................................43
Table 6.3 : From Application to Admission: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households in Our Sample Across .............44
Stages of the Implementation Cycle
Table 6.4 : From Application to Admission: Parental Education Characteristics of Households in Our Sample .....................45
across Stages of the Implementation Cycle
Table 6.5 : Travel Time to Collection Centres to collect application forms (%) ............................................................................46
Table 6.6 : Costs incurred during application process .......................................................................................................................47
Table 6.7 : Procurement of Documents ...............................................................................................................................................48
Table 6.8 : Cost of Procuring Caste Certicate and Income Certicate/BPL Card .......................................................................48
Table 6.9 : Individuals who helped applicants during the application process and dierent stages at which ............................48
applicants sought help
Table 6.10 : Responsiveness of the authorities ......................................................................................................................................48
Table 6.11 : Admission Experiences of those were admitted in allotted schools .............................................................................49
Table 6.12 : Grievance redressal at Application, Allotment or Admission stage..............................................................................49
Table 6.13 : Opinion about the process..................................................................................................................................................49
Table 6.14 : Retention of children in schools through Section 12 (1)(c) and percentage of dropouts from schools ..................50
admitted through 12(1)(c)
Table 6.15 : Management type of Schools children were studying in as of September to December 2016 ..................................50
Table 6.16 : Child likes most and least about school ............................................................................................................................50
Table 6.17 : Sports, cultural and picnic activities in schools ...............................................................................................................51
Table 6.18 : Parents experience at school: Parent Teacher Meetings, Receiving notices and Approaching Teachers .................51
Table 7.1 : Neighbourhood data submitted by school (Raipur) .......................................................................................................52
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 9
Table 7.2 : Applications under RTE 12(1)(c) in Raipur .....................................................................................................................53
Table 7.3 : Entry-age for admission in Uttar Pradesh ........................................................................................................................54
Table 7.4 : Application Timelines and Lottery rounds in Uttar Pradesh ........................................................................................54
Table 8.1 : Similarities and Dierences amongst the four lottery designs ......................................................................................61
Table 10.1 : Per-student recurring costs notied by state governments ............................................................................................70
Table 10.2 : Estimated per-student revenue expenditure ....................................................................................................................72
Table 10.3 : Comparison of notied costs and estimated per-student expenditures .......................................................................72
Table 10.4 : Dierences between per-student reimbursement and notied per student costs .......................................................73
Table 10.5 : Proportion of reimbursement out of total revenue expenditure ...................................................................................73
Table 10.6 : Enrolment in government schools ....................................................................................................................................74
Table 11.1 : Reimbursement against implementation of 12(1)(c) in AY 2016-17 ............................................................................76
Table 13.1 : Set of random numbers formed for lottery (Example for Maharashtra system).........................................................85
Table 13.2 : Example: Adarsh Vidya Mandir: Digit Combinations as per Table 13.1......................................................................86
school proles and enrolments has improved administrative
control and transparency. However, the use of GPS-based
neighbourhood mapping in Maharashtra and Gujarat, as
well as heavy reliance on mobile phones, computer, and
internet has created access barriers. Rajasthan’s dual mode
system of oine and online application is more accessible,
which is also attempted partially in Madhya Pradesh and
Gujarat. Also, the school-proling in Rajasthan allows
minority schools to register voluntarily, a feature that creates
more avenues of admission. A signicant lacuna that we
highlight is that the admission timelines are not synced with
regular admissions in all the States; the delays oen force
parents to pay high fees, and secure admissions otherwise.
e report also presents ndings from a eld-based inquiry
in 5 States, and a child tracking study of 1642 households in
Ahmedabad. Our research nds that there is a need to raise
awareness about RTE 12(1)(c) amongst the eligible groups.
About 92% of the eligible parents, who were systematically
informed about the mandate, applied for admission. Also,
the chances of actually securing admission improved, when
parents were told about the application procedure in detail.
e issues observed across all the States underline the need
for a responsive and accessible grievance redressal system
pre and post admissions. e help-centres are limited in
number, concentrated in urban areas- especially the capitals,
and undersupplied with resources to support the children.
e parents have to pay high costs to access the online
portals through private facilities, and to obtain necessary
documents from government oces. In all the States,
parents are subjected to heavy non-tuition fees charged
by the private schools. Also, many elite private schools
are able to evade the system, or resist the admissions by
imposing independent scrutiny of applications. Experiences
in Maharashtra and Gujarat, that we describe here, suggest
that community-led initiatives with collective eorts can
help improve the implementation. e experience in
Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh underlines the importance
of localised eorts and contextual problem solving, while
implementing the mandate.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Out of 36 States and Union Territories in India, only 1
Union Territory and 11 States have reportedly sought
funds from the Central Government for implementation
of the mandate, as the rules allow them to. ese States
are Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil
Nadu, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. is suggests that
despite nearly 8 years of its enactment, most of the States
are yet to full their obligations to their children, or do so
in a manner that can be considered systematic. e debate
on how to improve the implementation of the mandate,
a debate that this report joins, is a healthy one. However,
these debates cannot be used to justify the failure of those
obligated to fulll constitutional mandates that have also
been settled by the Supreme Court. We urge the Court
to take suo moto cognizance of this issue on which it has
spoken so clearly.
is report presents eld-based ndings on the digitised
admission process followed in Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. It also mentions
the initial experiences with online implementation in
Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh. It is built on data collected
from government ocials, parents, school administrators,
and civil society organisations in these States. We also
present an account of legal development around the issue,
and an analysis of secondary data on nancial statements
available in public domain.
Our analysis of per child reimbursement data reveals
that there is discrepancy between notied per student
reimbursement costs and actual per student expenditure
by government. Sources of this discrepancy are dicult
to locate due to lack of clarity on how these notied costs
are derived. Analysis, detailed in the report, also points to
the possibility that most of the schools admitting children
under 12(1)(c) are low cost/fee private schools. What that
means for inclusion and learning needs to be analysed.
e implementation of online portals has rendered mixed
results. e centralised admission process with online
is report describes the status of implementation of the
constitutional mandate under the Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act (Section 12(1)(c)) for private
unaided schools (non-minority) and special category schools
to keep aside at least 25 per cent of their seats for children
from economically weaker and disadvantaged sections of
society at no fee to the children. e report focuses on its
application for the private unaided non-minority schools.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 11
e comparison of lottery algorithms shows that there are
systematic dierences across the States, which can limit
the chances of admission. e sequential logic followed
in Karnataka limits the role of parental preferences in
the online application. It can also lead to large number
of rejections aer the allotment. In Maharashtra and
Rajasthan, multiple allotments are possible at a time, which
create a need to run multiple lottery rounds to ll the
vacancies. e lotteries in Karnataka and Gujarat follow
category-wise prioritisation, which provide examples of how
governments can prioritize more disadvantaged groups.
We draw special attention to the priority number system in
Rajasthan that we believe can be potentially developed into
an ideal algorithm, subject to contextual modications.
Concluding the report, we prescribe ways to improve the
implementation of the mandate. e recommendations are
built upon our analyses of primary and secondary data, and
our experience of working rst hand in trying to facilitate
the implementation process. We hope that the government
will fulll its constitutional obligations, and take proactive
steps to help further the purposes of RTE 12(1)(c) in
challenging the “hierarchies of access” to school education.
FOREWORD
e Right to Education Act, 2009 made a provision under Section 12(1)(c) by mandating
unaided schools to keep aside 25% seats for underprivileged children of society. e act poses
implementation challenges. As part of an action research project at IIM Ahmedabad’s Ravi J Mathai
Centre for Innovation in Education and under the rubric of “Right to Education Resource Centre”
a dedicated team of researchers have been making attempts to improve the implementation of this
act. I am glad that they have sustained their eorts to engage with this challenging topic, and are
presenting a State of the Nation Report for the third consecutive year.
e report should serve the interests of researchers, civil society workers, and government ocials
working in the education sector. e report has paid signicant attention to the implementation
of online portals and challenges therein, noteworthy since many State governments are moving
towards the use of e-governance in school admissions. e report addresses the administrative,
nancial, and legal aspects of implementing the RTE 12(1)(c) online. is is supplemented by an
Ahmedabad-based child tracking study, and contributions from social workers with grassroots level
experiences.
I congratulate the authors at IIM Ahmedabad along with our partners – Central Square
Foundation, Accountability Initiative, Centre for Policy Research, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy,
and Indus Action for this collaborative work. e report has also benetted from contributions by
civil society representatives and government ocials. I hope these partnerships will continue to
bring together meaningful dialog towards realising an inclusive education system.
Ashish Nanda
Director
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 13
FOREWORD
RTE Section 12(1)(c) is one of the world’s largest programmes for public funding and private
provision in education. is policy presents multiple opportunities to improve the school system:
Firstly, it allows parents to send their children to a school they consider to be of better quality.
e only criterion is the distance between the school and home, rather than nancial ability or
background. Secondly, students from the economically weaker sections, disadvantaged groups, and
relatively privileged children are all in the same class. Evidence suggests that inclusive education
makes children more pro-social and generous, without aecting their academic outcomes.
Interestingly, the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) requires that private schools submit data
around enrolment and fees, among other aspects. Since the reimbursement that schools receive is
calculated based on this information, it tends to be more reliable than other sources. Lastly, one of
the major arguments for this provision is that attending private schools will improve the learning
outcomes of children from marginalized sections.
Despite these multiple theories of change, the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) has been
sporadic at best, with only eleven States and one UT having admitted children under this clause1.
Financial burden on the State is one of the main reasons for the patchy non-implementation of this
provision.
e proverbial silver lining comes from States like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Karnataka.
ese States have the highest enrolments across the country when it comes to absolute number2.
All three of these States use an online system to handle and streamline the complex process of
application, allotment, and admission. Some States have even used such an e-governance system
for the end-to-end implementation of Section 12. Every function from school registration to
reimbursement is channeled through it.
Out of the eight States that currently use an online system, primary research was conducted in
ve3. Further, chapters from implementing agencies working in Chhattisgarh (Raipur)4 and Uttar
Pradesh have also been included.
Aside from highlighting national best practices, this year’s State of the Nation report also examines
some broader questions around the 25% reservation provision. Does it need to be altered to better
serve its intended purpose? Better targeting of schools is also necessary so that parents aren’t lured
into y-by-night, poor quality private schools under the guise of a better education.ere is also the
danger of students dropping out due to discrimination in the classroom, or the EWS/DG children
not being able to cope.
rough this third edition of the State of the Nation report, we hope that the skeptics can become
interested, and those who are interested can become champions for the promotion of this provision.
Eective collaboration between NGOs and governments can bring some of the most marginalized
and vulnerable members of our society into the mainstream. I commend the authors of this report
for highlighting best practices for governments, and shining a light on RTE’s Section 12(1)(c).
Ashish Dhawan
Founder and Chairman,
Central Square Foundation
[1] Based on whether a proposal was submitted by a State during the Project Approval Board meetings, 2017 - 18
[2] PAB minutes 2017 – 18.
[3] e states are: Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat, Delhi, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Primary
research was conducted in the rst ve.
[4] Chhattisgarh is piloting an e-governance system in Raipur district, in collaboration with Indus Action.
COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS
AMC Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
ASBS Anudanit Shiksha Bachao Samiti, Andheri, Mumbai
BEO Block Education Ocer
BPL Below poverty line
BRC Block Resource Centre
CBSE Central Board of Secondary Education
CRC Cluster Resource Centre
CSF Central Square Foundation, New Delhi
DEO District Education Ocer
DPEO District Primary Education Ocer
DG Disadvantaged Group
DISE District Information System for Education
EWS Economically weaker sections
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
GPS Global Positioning System
GR Government Resolution
GSEB Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board
HIV Human Immunodeciency Virus
IHDS Indian Human Development Survey
ICT Information and Communication Technology
ID Identity card
IIM Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
IT Information Technology
KKPKP Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat
MHRD Ministry of Human Resource Development
MIS Management Information System
MLA Member of Legislative Assembly
MP Madhya Pradesh
NDNT Nomadic and Denotied Tribes
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NSS National Sample Survey Oce
PAB Project Approval Board
PIL Public Interest Litigation
PTA Parent Teacher Association
PTM Parent Teacher Meeting
RTE Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
RTERC Right To Education Resource Centre, Ahemedabad
SEBC Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
SEO Search Engine Optimization
SC Scheduled Caste / Supreme Court of India*
SCPCR State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights
SLAS State Learning Achievement Survey
SMS Short Message Service
SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
ST Scheduled Tribe
OBC Other Backward Classes
UP Uttar Pradesh
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 15
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
[5] According to the National sample survey, about 51% of primary school
students in urban areas go to private unaided schools, the proportion being
41.5% and 36.5% for upper primary and secondary levels, respectively
(NSSO 2015). In rural areas, the percentage of elementary school students
going to private unaided schools is close to 20%. Nonetheless, ASER 2014
reports a signicant rise in the private school enrolment in rural areas
(ASER 2014).
[6] e special category schools include any school notied under this category
by the government, and the centrally funded schools such as Kendriya
Vidyalaya (see Government of India, RTE Act).
[7] e Supreme Court exempted minority schools from the mandatory
provision: Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of
India, (2012) 6 SCC 102
Right to inclusive, quality education is a non-negotiable
criterion for a society and polity to be called just and
democratic. Such a society cannot be realised by merely
articulating the right, but by orienting policy and practice
towards it. Social justice, going beyond the distribution of
rights, requires a reorientation of social relations through
policies, procedures, and formal and informal rules that
govern organisations (Gewirtz 1998). In this light, Section
12(1)(c) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009 (RTE), which mandates that unaided non-
minority private schools set aside at least twenty-ve
percent of their entry level seats for children from weaker
and disadvantaged sections of society, stands as a crucial
policy instrument in India. By mandating the inclusion
of underprivileged children in private unaided schools, it
acknowledges and challenges the existing hierarchies in
access to education. Its eective implementation requires
the government to create a system providing administrative,
nancial, and legal support.
Section 12(1)(c) is an acknowledgement of the segregated
school system in India, and that of the rising dominance
of private schools5 (see Majumdar and Mooij 2011). While
the segregation reects societal, political, and economic
inequalities, the institutional structure of the schooling
system undoubtedly enables and magnies it. In doing
so, extant institutions reproduce inequities in society,
instead of mitigating them (Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz 1996).
Section 12(1)(c) represents a potential challenge to existing
institutional structures that serve to segregate educational
opportunities available to children.
THE INDIAN SCHOOLSYSTEM: “HIERARCHIES OF
ACCESS”
e Indian school-system is characterized by what
Ramachandran and Saihjee (2002) describe as “hierarchies
of access”; compartments of elite private schools and special
category6 schools on the one hand, and the local state-run
schools, low budget private schools, and tribal schools on
the other hand. is is accompanied by schools run by
religious institutions and other civil society organisations.
e exclusionary and highly dierentiated nature of
schooling implies an inverse relationship between access
and quality, as the weaker sections nd it increasingly
dicult- for political, cultural, or economic reasons- to
enter and cope in schools regarded as better-quality schools.
Exclusions in the segregated school system occur and
manifest themselves at multiple stages, with exclusions
at one stage oen serving to reinforce those at another.
Starting from non-enrolment, children from weaker
sections are more likely to drop-out because of poor quality
of schooling. For those, who survive, the learning outcomes
are oen not commensurate to the investments made.
Drawing on a systematic review of literature and a database
on schooling in India, Govinda and Bandyopadhyay (2008)
argue that the exclusion is better seen as a process rather
than just an outcome. It is a reection of a child’s personal
history into their present social context. According to
this study factors (in descending order of signicance),
the exclusion is primarily caused by four factors- gender
discrimination, social dierences of caste and religion,
locational disadvantage, and economic disadvantage.
Implying that children from Scheduled Caste (SC),
Scheduled Tribe (ST), and minority communities, girls,
children from remote areas, and those belonging to
nancially poor families nd it dicult to secure enrolment
in schools, or fail to cope with schooling aer enrolment.
e issues are exacerbated for children who are physically or
mentally challenged. ese children, who form a vulnerable
section of society, are denied opportunities of mainstream
educational prospects.
Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE, attempts to work as an
ameliorative instrument against some, but not all factors
of this exclusionary process. It mandates that special
category schools such as Kendriya Vidyalaya, as well as
unaided private schools should admit children from weaker
sections and disadvantaged groups7. e number of seats
reserved for these children should be no less than 25%,
thereby creating a minimum critical mass for inclusion. e
admission is statutorily guaranteed as free and compulsory,
wherein the unaided schools are reimbursed a stipulated
amount. While this process can be seen as an ‘exogenous
privatisation’ of educational activity (Ball and Youdell 2008),
the fact that it is accompanied by the state’s intervention
in the private school system, also establishes new lines of
control. Consequently, its implementation is tenuous, and
attracts resistance from private schools (Sarin and Gupta
2014).
e resistance from private schools, and the limited success
in implementation of Section 12(1)(c), serve to underline
the obstacles in achieving the goals of social justice through
the RTE. Based on a qualitative study of urban private
schools, Verma (2016) highlights that the parents of the
other 75% students, as well as the school administrators
tend to have prejudice against the children from
marginalised communities. ey fear that these children
bring inferior upbringing, cultural disadvantage, and poor
academic contribution to the classroom. Such concerns fuel
the resistance from private schools, and reluctance of the
state in implementing the mandate. Against the backdrop of
such diculties, it is pertinent to note that the enrolments
under RTE 12(1)(c) have been improving over the last two
years. However, this growth is ponderous, and it suers
from new and rising challenges in the policy processes
adopted for its implementation (Sarin et al. 2015, 2016).
In this context, an inquiry into the procedures, formal and
informal rules becomes critically important.
ACADEMIC AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS AROUND
121c
Various studies around this issue have oen focused on
feasibility and desirability of the quota, and on options
such as low cost private schooling with respect to the
goals of inclusion and eciency (Jain and Dholakia
2009, Sarangapani 2009, Nambissan 2012). Also, there is
considerable discussion amongst researchers on school-level
experiences, and tensions arising post the implementation of
RTE 12(1)(c) (Noronha and Srivastava 2013, Bhattacharjee,
Mysoor and Sivaramakrishnan 2014, Sarangapani,
Mehendale, et al. 2014). Notably, the admission and
application processes in school education have been a
subject of a few recent studies (Iyengar and Surianarain
2010, Jha, et al. 2013, Mehendale, Mukhopadhyay and
Namala 2015). ese attempt to provide a broad picture of
the rules and bureaucratic structure, and make the case for
clarity on the administrative procedures and practices8.
Apart from the work cited in this report and earlier ones,
there are several practitioner-based and policy oriented
accounts documenting 12(1)(c) implementation. Many civil
society organisations working in education, even those with
limited reach within their regions, have made contributions
in this regard. ese include the RTE Forum in New Delhi,
Centre for Budget and Policy Studies in Bangalore (CBPS),
Child Rights Trust- RTE Task Force in Bangalore, Coalition
25 run by the Centre for Civil Society, Avani in Kolhapur,
Abhyutthanam Society in Jaipur, Centre for Social Equity
and Inclusion with Oxfam in Delhi, and All India Forum for
Right to Education. We highlight a few here.
e RTE Forum publishes the ‘Status of Implementation
of the RTE’ report (RTE Forum 2011). While their reports
focus on overall implementation of all the provisions in the
act, they also highlight the poor implementation of 12(1)(c)
across the States, and the lack of institutional structures to
improve it. Based on the experiences of various NGOs, they
point to the opposition to 12(1)(c) by private schools, and
the need for State intervention to facilitate admissions. e
forum has published ve reports since 2010-11.
A Karnataka-based report focussing specically on
implementation of 12(1)(c) has been published by CBPS
in 2013. It focuses on acceptance of marginalised children
in private, unaided schools (CBPS 2013). Drawing upon
its ndings from primary as well as secondary data, it
makes ve recommendations to improve the status of
implementation. ey include: ward-level information
fair for parents, clarity about applicability of various rules
and neighbourhood limits at the block level, and smooth
distribution of responsibilities from the secretariat to
block level oces. ey also recommend that there should
be sensitisation programmes for private school teachers
to improve the overall implementation of the mandate,
and to enhance children’s experience in schools and
outside. A report published by CBPS in 2016 compares the
oine and online admission system in Karnataka. While
underlining the benets such as administrative eciency
and transparency, the report suggests that many parents still
prefer oine system for its accessibility, and the trust they
feel with it (CBPS 2016).
ere are a few organisations that have attempted
documenting the implementation of online portals. A
website (rightoteducation.in) run by Centre for Civil
Society compiles information about RTE rules in various
States, court judgements, and online portals. It suggests
collaboration with private corporations to enhance
RTE implementation in selected schools. Among other
suggestions, it advocates for rating of schools based on
learning outcomes, and private partnerships for eective
implementation of RTE.
e RTE quota has gathered visibility in news and popular
media. A Hindi lm released in 2017 dealt with the issue
of fake certicates used to secure admissions under 12(1)
(c), uncertainties in the allotment process, elite bias against
marginalised children, and lack of comparable alternatives
in government schools (Chaudhary 2017). e news media
has also provided considerable space to 12(1)(c) related
matters, especially during the application period. Most of
the government ocials interviewed for this study have
conrmed that they rely on print and online media for
publicising the admission notications.
e 12(1)(c) reportage has drawn attention to several
practical issues in implementation. Media reports repeatedly
suggest that city corporations and State governments do
not have trackable records of the 25% children, despite
government rules about the same. If the mandate is
[8] e State of the Nation Reports presented earlier also followed this
reasoning. ey attempted evaluating the performance of dierent States in
making the rules clear to understand, and simple to implement for general
public.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 17
implemented, the elite and dominant schools are typically
able to escape any inquiry. is is seen despite news-
reports publicly naming the schools, and their resistance to
following the orders of Education Department (Bhatnagar
2016). Reports from North India, especially Uttar Pradesh
and Delhi, indicate that many parents are not reimbursed
for uniforms and textbooks, unlike what is mandated
(Pandey, India and the Right to Education 2017) (Pandey
2017, S. Jain 2017). Also, reports suggest that imposition of
new document requirements such as Aadhar Card has led to
exclusion of many, especially migrant children (Chowdhury
2017).
LEARNINGS FROM THE EARLIER REPORTS
e State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) project
began as an attempt to understand how dierent
States are performing in their implementation of the
mandate. Two prior reports, published in 2015 and
2016, cover administrative, legal, and nancial aspects
of implementation (Sarin et al. 2015, 2016). Importantly,
they provide a comparable assessment across States, and
glimpses of various issues involved in the implementation,
thus suggesting further improvements. In doing so, the
reports try to provide a comprehensive understanding of
the unfolding of a policy mandate, seeing it as an iterative
process with several dierent dimensions.
e performance of dierent States in clarifying the rules
and procedures, and in increasing the enrolment is assessed
using a rubric that facilitates macro-level comparison of
the state systems, and highlights areas of improvement.
Based on secondary data and eld-based inquiries, the
reports identify a need for clarity in denitions, especially
in the denition of eligibility criteria for children, and
that of neighbourhoods. Drawing from the analysis,
the reports call for increased eorts by governments to
raise awareness about the mandate amongst the targeted
communities. Examining the application guidelines, the
reports also suggest that states adopt dual (online and
oine) application modes, build a responsive grievance
redressal mechanism, and facilitate tracking of the children’s
enrolment and academic progress.
In Table 1.1, we revisit some of the ndings from the earlier
reports. Both the reports use a tabular rubric, which assesses
various aspects of the 12(1)(c) implementation in the States.
e assessment follows a rating as green, yellow, or red,
in the descending order of the performance. For example,
a green in neighbourhood criteria means that the State
has explicitly claried the denition of neighbourhood,
and it is positively followed. Similarly, a red in outreach
and awareness indicates lack of adequate eorts from
the government in disseminating necessary information
amongst the right-holders.
Table 1: Selected findings from the earlier reports and new developments
Findings noted in State of the Nation:
RTE Section 12(1)(c) 2015 / 2016 reports
Improved understanding in the current report
Maharashtra: Green in neighbourhood
criteria (both 2015 and 2016)
e GPS-based neighbourhood denition suers from technical errors caused by wrong
positioning by parents/ schools. It also adds technological burden, thus making the system
inaccessible to underprivileged groups. (More in Chapter 2, 3, and 4)
Maharashtra: Green in outreach and
awareness (both 2015 and 2016)
e regulated admission process, centralised at the education department, was implemented
only in Mumbai and Pune. For 2017, we have found that the centralised admission is now
followed across all the districts, and it is regulated from the Pune Centre. (Chapter 2)
Karnataka: Green in denition of eligibility
criteria, Red in outreach and awareness
(both 2015 and 2016)
Both the ratings have been found suitable through the eld-based inquiry, as the eligibility
criteria has been explicitly dened. Also, there seems little eort for generating awareness.
(More in Chapter 2)
Karnataka: Green in neighbourhood
criteria (both 2015 and 2016)
e selection process in Karnataka uses a process of computerised re-verication before
conducting the lottery. It guesses neighbourhood based on candidate’s locality and pincode.
At this stage, about one lakh applications were rejected last year. (Chapter 2 and 8)
Madhya Pradesh: Red in outreach
and awareness, Yellow in clarity on
neighbourhood (both 2015 and 2016)
e outreach and awareness works better, since the BRC (Block Resource Centre) serves
as the admission help-centre. Also, the neighbourhood is explicitly dened by identifying
wards/villages. (Chapter 2)
Rajasthan: Green in denition of eligibility
criteria
e State uses BPL (Below Poverty Line) as a criterion to identify economic deprivation.
It has also attempted excluding OBC (Other Backward Class) candidates lacking BPL
certicates. e reliance on BPL has been struck down through litigations. (Chapter 2 and 9)
Other relevant ndings:
• e 12(1)(c) has the potential to impact about 16 million children from EWS (economically weaker section) and DG (disadvantaged
groups).
• e secondary data available on DISE (District Information System for Education), SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan), and online
admission portals is inconsistent. e need for clean, uniform, and trackable data on enrolments and progress remains.
• Several States need to develop MIS (Management Information System) along with institutionalised structures to improve the
implementation of 12(1)(c).
• Many governments are proactively avoiding the admissions under the quota. In such a scenario, the role of civil society organisations
and collective action is critical.
Building on earlier State-level assessments, which are
useful for macro-level comparisons, this report tries to
further our understanding of the implementation process
by studying deeper, contextual experiences of eld based
organisations in the cities of Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Pune,
Bangalore, Bhopal, and Jaipur in the year 2016. Over the
last year, the States of Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat have initiated signicant steps
towards digitising the admission process, or revamping
their earlier systems. us, our earlier inquiries that focused
on denitions of the clause and clarity on procedures now
emphasize the practical interpretations of the clause.
OBJECTIVES
Unlike the earlier reports, there is no State-level comparison
or a denitive rubric in the present analyses, as our
assessment last year suggested that there are not too many
signicant changes to report on a year to year basis. Instead,
deeper contextual inquiries into specic aspects of the
mandate form the core of this year’s report. e attempt is
to provide richer, more descriptive analyses of the 12(1)(c)
implementation, and its intermediate outcomes.
Broadly, this report aims to document and analyse:
1. Procedural design of the admissions process and systems
in Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,
and Rajasthan; initial implementation of online portals
in Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh
2. Concerns and challenges faced by multiple stakeholders
in relation to the admission process
3. Parents’ experiences of 12(1)(c) application process, and
experiences once child is admitted to school through
12(1)(c) in Ahmedabad
4. Financial aspects of the implementation:
reimbursements per school and overall expenditure
incurred for 12(1)(c)
5. Legal developments in relation to 12(1)(c), especially
those related to denitions of specic categories, and the
centralised admission process
INSIDE THE REPORT
ere are ten independent chapters in this report. We
hope the information presented in these chapters will
benet researchers in education, social activists, as well as
government ocials.
In the chapter on admission cycle, we describe and compare
the Section 12(1)(c) admission process in the States of
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan.
All the four States rely on online portals for admissions.
Drawing on the comparisons, we argue that it is desirable
to have a dual mode of application (online and oine),
accompanied by responsive help-centres. We nd the
application systems in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh to be
particularly applicant-friendly, and worth of emulation by
other States. e presence of RTE Cell and involvement of
civil society organisations in Mumbai and Pune, although in
small scale, shows that the availability of a responsive centre
can help address signicant issues in implementation.
e chapter on ‘lottery logic’ attempts to document
the allotment algorithms used in the four States. e
information presented in this chapter is based on structured
interviews of the programmers working on the portals.
e algorithms may help identify new areas of inquiry,
and develop a comprehensive lottery logic for ecient
and inclusive allotments. We discuss the priority number
allotment in Rajasthan in juxtaposition with the single-seat
allotment in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, and the multi-
seat guarantee in Maharashtra.
Based on a survey of 1642 households in Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation area, the sixth chapter provides
information on parents’ experiences of application,
allotment, and admission process. It also describes
the schooling experiences post-admission. It has been
found that majority of the eligible parents, who had
clear information about the 12(1)(c) and its procedural
requirements, applied for admission. It has also been
noticed that they incurred signicant costs during the
process, which can be avoided by setting-up resourceful
help-centres.
e nancial and legal aspects of RTE 12(1)(c)
implementation are discussed in two distinct chapters. ey
provide interesting updates, and insights on the issues. e
chapter on nancial aspects delves into ‘reimbursement
costs’ using latest budget documents. It points out
the necessity of methodological clarity in calculating
reimbursements. e chapter on legal developments draws
attention to issues related to Section 12(1)(c). e authors
nd that while the courts have resisted eorts to narrow the
eligibility criteria (like using the criteria of having a BPL
card as the only way of identifying EWS candidates) , they
have generally stayed away from ruling on administrative
procedures like the mode of admissions. e courts have
been particularly proactive in regard to ensuring the
benets of the mandate reach children with needs.
In this report, we also include three chapters that are based
on sustained, grassroots level experiences of work in aiding
the implementation of RTE 12(1)(c). ey are written by
representatives of Anudanit Shiksha Bachao Samiti (ASBS),
Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat (KKPKP), and
Right to Education Resource Centre (RTERC). rough
this discussion, various procedural issues related to the
implementation are highlighted. ese chapters provide an
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 19
account of commonly faced grievances with the system. is
discussion is supplemented by the chapter by Indus Action,
in which the authors draw on the organisation’s experience
to describe the recent implementation of online portals
in Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh. e overall admission
scenario is summarised in the eleventh chapter, followed by
recommendations and conclusion.
REFERENCES
ASER. 2014. Annual Status of Education Report 2014.
National Survey, New Delhi: ASER Centre.
Accessed May 31, 2017. http://www.asercentre.org/
Keywords/p/234.html.
Ball, Stephen J, and Deborah Youdell. 2008. Hidden
privatisation in public education. Brussels: Education
International. Accessed May 31, 2017. http://download.
ei-ie.org/docs/IRISDocuments/Research%20
Website%20Documents/2009-00034-01-E.pdf.
Ball, Stephen J., Richard Bowe, and Sharon Gewirtz.
1996. “School choice, social class and distinction:
the realization of social advantage in education.”
Journal of Education Policy 11: 89-112.
doi:10.1080/0268093960110105.
Bhatacharjee, Malini, Dolashree Mysoor , and Arun
Sivaramakrishnan. 2014. “RTE Grievance Redress in
Karnataka.” Economic & Political Weekly 49 (23): 37.
Bhatnagar, Gaurav Vivek. 2016. “Delhi Civic Bodies Refuse
to Share Data on School Admissions for Poor Kids.”
e Wire, December 29. Accessed July 15, 2017. https://
thewire.in/90421/delhi-bjp-school-admissions/.
CBPS. 2013. A Study on Quality of Acceptance of Children
Admitted in Private Unaided Schools in Bangalore under
section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. Bangalore: Centre for
Budget and Policy Studies. Accessed May 31, 2017.
http://cbps.in/wp-content/uploads/RTE_SSA_Quality-
of-Acceptance.pdf.
CBPS. 2016. Review of the newly introduced online process
for admissions under right to education act section 12(1)
(c) in private unaided schools in Karnataka. Bangalore:
Centre for Budget and Policy Studies. Accessed 17
July, 2017. http://cbps.in/wp-content/uploads/RTE_
FinalReport_29July2016.pdf.
Chaudhary, Saket. 2017. Hindi Medium. Film. India:
Maddock Films.
Chowdhury, Shreya Roy. 2017. “By making Aadhaar
mandatory, Delhi’s government schools are shutting
their doors to migrant children.” Scroll, April 16.
Accessed July 15, 2017. https://scroll.in/article/834418/
by-making-aadhaar-mandatory-delhis-government-
schools-are-shutting-their-doors-to-migrant-children.
Gewirtz, Sharon. 1998. “Conceptualizing social justice in
education: mapping the territory.” Journal of Education
Policy 13: 469-484. doi:10.1080/0268093980130402.
Govinda, R., and Madhumita Bandyopadhyay. 2008. Access
to Elementary Education in India. Project Report,
National University of Educational Planning and
Administration (NUEPA), Falmer, UK: Consortium
for Research on Educational Access, Transitions and
Equity (CREATE). http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/2145/.
Government of India. 2009. e Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act 35 of 2009,
as on 01.05.2014). New Delhi: Government of India.
Accessed June 17, 2016. http://indiacode.nic.in/
amendmentacts2012/e%20Right%20to%20Free%20
and%20Compulsary%20Education%20Act.pdf
Iyengar, Radhika, and Sharmi Surianarain. 2010. “A
Comparative Analysis of Education Policy and
Practice: e Case of Institutions in Mumbai and
Delhi.” Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education
(ERIC) 8: 19-28.
Jain, Pankaj S., and Ravindra H. Dholakia. 2009. “Feasibility
of implementation of right to education Act.” Economic
and Political weekly (JSTOR) 38-43.
Jain, Shruti. 2017. “Steep Charges for Uniform, Books,
Meals Make ‘Free Education’ For Delhi’s Poor a Farce.”
e Wire, April 12. Accessed July 15, 2017. https://
thewire.in/123463/schools-education-ews-delhi/.
Jha, Jyotsna, Neha Ghatak, Shreekanth Mahendiran,
Shubhashansha Bakshi, and others. 2013.
“Implementing the Right to Education Act 2009: e
real challenges.” Tech. rep., Discussion paper. Centre
for Budget and Policy Studies, Bangalore.
Majumdar, M., and J. E. Mooij. 2011. Education and
Inequality in India: A Classroom View. Oxon:
Routledge.
Mehendale, Archana, Rahul Mukhopadhyay, and Annie
Namala. 2015. “Right to Education and inclusion in
private unaided schools.” Economic & Political Weekly
50: 43.
Nambissan, G. B. 2012. “Low-cost private schools for the
poor in India: some reections.” India Infrastructure
Report 84-93.
Noronha, C., and P. Srivastava. 2013. “India’s Right to
Education Act: Household experiences and private
school responses.” Education Support Program Working
Paper Series.
NSSO. 2015. Key Indicators of Social Consumption in India
Education NSS 71st Round January-June 2014. NSS
KI (71/25.2), New Delhi: National Sample Survey
Oce, Government of India. Accessed May 31, 2017.
http://mail.mospi.gov.in/index.php/catalog/160/
download/1933.
Pandey, Sandeep. 2017. “India and the Right to Education.”
Fair Observer, July 23. Accessed July 28, 2017. https://
www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/
education-india-uttar-pradesh-lucknow-global-goals-
latest-news-today-54797/.
Pandey, Sandeep. 2017. “Improving the Quality of
Education Still not a Priority for UP Government.”
Mainstream Weekly LV (31).
Ramachandran, Vimala, and Aarti Saihjee. “e New
Segregation: Reections on gender and equity in
primary education.” Economic & Political Weekly
(2002): 1600-1613.
RTE Forum. 2011. Status of Implementation of the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009:
1 April 2010-2011. New Delhi: RTE Forum. Accessed
May 31, 2017. http://www.rteforumindia.org/sites/
default/les/Report_2010-11.pdf.
Sarangapani, Padma M. 2009. “Quality, feasibility and
desirability of low cost private schooling.” Economic &
Po litical We e k ly (JSTOR) 67-69.
Sarangapani, Padma M., A. Mehendale, R. Mukhopadhyay,
and A. Namala. 2014. “Inclusion of marginalised
children in private unaided schools under the right of
children to free and compulsory education act, 2009.”
Oxfam India, New Delhi.
Sarin, Ankur, Sunaina Kuhn, Ambrish Dongre, Ekta Joshi,
Arghya Sengupta, Rukmini Das, Faiza Rahman,
Bikkrama Daulet Singh, and Praveen Khangta.
2015. e State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)
(c) Report. Ahmedabad: IIM Ahmedabad, Central
Square Foundation, Accountability Initiative, Vidhi
Legal, Accessed May 31, 2017. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2637817
Sarin, Ankur, Monisha Dhingra, Reecha Das, Vasudha Kaul,
Akshay Milap, Ashish Ranjan, Neha Sharma, Nishank
Varshney, Ambrish Dongre, Ajey Sengai, Akriti Gaur,
Shruti Ambast, Praveen Khanghta, and Bikkrama
Daulet Singh. 2016. e State of the Nation: RTE
Section 12(1)(c) Report. Ahmedabad: IIM Ahmedabad,
Central Square Foundation, Accountability Initiative,
Vidhi Legal, Accessed May 31, 2017. http://www.
accountabilityindia.in/state-nation-rte-section-121c-
provisional
Sarin, Ankur, and Swati Gupta. 2014. “Quotas under the
right to education.” Economic & Political Weekly 49
(38): 65-72.
Verma, Isha. (2016). Ensuring Inclusive Education through
the Right to Education Act: A Case Study of Private
Unaided Schools in Delhi. (Unpublished Masters
Dissertation). Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 21
CHAPTER 2:
ONLINE PORTALS: WHAT WORKS
Shrikant Wad, Ambrish Dongre, Ankur Sarin
is chapter summarises the major challenges in
implementing the RTE 12(1)(c) mandate online. It
highlights the variations in admission process in the States
of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Rajasthan.
Further, it tries to suggest what works so that the admission
procedures can be made more accessible to underprivileged
children, subject to contextual diculties. is summary is
based on a eld-based inquiry conducted in Mumbai, Pune,
Bhopal, Bangalore, and Jaipur in 2016.
INTRODUCTION
In order to make the admissions under RTE 12(1)(c)
transparent and centralised, the State governments9 are
adopting the use of e-governance techniques. is has
given rise to online portals for admission, and centralised
monitoring of the admission process from the department
of education. e digitisation of the admission process has
also led to introduction of new application procedures,
and technological requirements. For parents, the system
has created access issues, as it demands literacy, computer
prociency, and availability of computers with internet and
electricity. For schools, the challenge is to maintain their
prole accurately, and report the admissions duly to the
department. e department, making policy decisions, is
required to make arrangements for making the admission
process accessible and inclusive, while also retaining its
centralised control, and goals of transparency through
online monitoring.
Acknowledging these challenges, this chapter delineates
the similarities and dierences in admission cycle in four
States viz. Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and
Rajasthan. e States were selected based on the availability
of resources, networking, and convenience. Data was
collected through eld-visits to Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore,
Bhopal, and Jaipur. Key government ocials involved in
executing the RTE 12(1)(c) admission process in these
States were interviewed. Practical issues were noted by
interacting with local NGO workers, parents, and school
administrators. rough the comparative analysis of this
data presented further, an attempt is made at highlighting
critical issues aecting the implementation of RTE 12(1)(c),
and possible alternatives to address them.
STEPS IN ADMISSION
In all the four States, the admission processes follow four
stages as shown in gure 1. In the rst two stages, the
challenge is to obtain accurate details about location, entry-
level, and vacancy from schools, and eligibility and location
details from deserving applicants. Aer announcing the
lottery results, the administrator’s task is to convert the
vacancy-applicant matches into nal school admissions.
Figure 1: Major Stages in RTE 12(1)(c) Admission
Process
[9] e online portals are being used in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,
Karnataka, Delhi, and Rajasthan. e other States including Gujarat, Tamil
Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh have announced that they will begin using the
online portals from 2017.
IDENTIFY VACANCIES
To identify vacancies10 for admission, the system relies on proles of
unaided, non-minority schools with data on location, intake capacity,
entry criteria, entry level, and bank account for reimbursement against the
admissions. ese proles are then veried by respective Education Ocers
online. e process varies as shown in Table 2.1.
[10] Here, the identication of vacancies is for the computer system to run
the lottery, not for parents. e 25% seats are set aside, and not updated
during the application process. Parents are not informed about the vacancy/
number of applications received for each school.
Table 2.1: School Registration Process for RTE 12(1)(c) in the four States
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Karnataka Rajasthan
School prole is created
by
School (DISE code used) School (DISE code used) Migrated from DISE,
updated by BEOs
School (DISE code not
essential; registration
open to minority schools
as well)
Prole update Fresh prole every year Annual update by school,
subject to changes if any
Annual update by BEO,
subject to changes if any
Annual update by school,
subject to changes if any
What works and the
challenges
• e school prole system in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh provides direct access to schools for
maintaining and updating their permanent proles. Moreover, the Rajasthan system is more open
to including the schools irrespective of availability of DISE code. It also allows minority schools to
voluntarily register.
• e fresh entry system in Maharashtra burdens the schools with update work in a short span of time; it
overloads the portal website. Also, the DISE migration and BEO’s role in Karnataka leaves room for errors
caused by negligence in data entry, as BEOs cannot track every school detail. In MP and Rajasthan, this
problem is addressed by retaining online proles from previous years, and updating them through schools
based on changes if any.
School location and
neighbourhood
GPS pin location on
Google Map entered by
School; Area within 3km
aerial radius
Ward or village in which
the school is located,
and its predened
neighbouring wards/
villages
Ward or village in which the school is located
What works and the
challenges
• e Maharashtra system provides for the possibility of the most accurate school mapping. However, it
suers from access issues as schools as well as parents cannot always place themselves correctly on the
map. Parents oen lack spatial literacy or acquaintance with the Google Map system to identify their
neighbourhood.
• e system in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh ensures a robust mapping in which the whole ward
or village is included in neighbourhood, along with the predened neighbouring ward or village. It
provides for a neighbourhood that can be known without spatial or technological literacy. Also, such
neighbourhood covers wider area than the GPS system.
• Nonetheless, ward is not the best measure of geographical neighbourhood, since it is dened by
population size. e neighbourhood can be large and inaccessible for applicants in a scarcely populated
area, and narrow for a densely populated one.
• Also, there is oen a lack of clarity on ward/ village to which the schools belong. Erroneous ward entries
lead to unsuitable allocations for applicants, as the school allotted might be too far to access. Alternatively,
schools in the actual neighbourhood might be inapplicable, if their ward/ village entries are incorrect. e
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan systems carry forward these issues. ey can be improved by
generating awareness amongst school administrators about their ward/ village identication.
Entry level • Unlike the other three States, Karnataka does not oer dual entry in pre-primary and grade 1 class. is
limits the number of seats.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 23
CONFIRM APPLICANTS
e school vacancies need to be matched with applicants,
who t the requirements prescribed by the State RTE rules.
Accordingly, the admission portals seek candidate’s name,
age, cellphone number, eligibility category, and location
details. eir designs vary as discussed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Application Process for RTE 12(1)(c) in the four States
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Karnataka Rajasthan
Form submission mode Online only Either online or oine
(same as online form,
submitted at a school or
BRC Oce)
Online only Online (one form for
all schools) and Oine
(One form per school,
submitted at the desired
school)
Submission of evidence
for Eligibility, Age, and
Location
Certicates to be
uploaded along with the
application
Certicates to be
uploaded along with the
application
Certicate numbers to
be uploaded with the
application, which are
internally veried.
No upload requirement.
Also, documents are
instantly veried at the
school level, when oine
mode is used.
Assistance for online
submission
A few help-centres in
Mumbai and Pune,
reportedly inadequate in
resources
No specic help-centres,
but oine alternatives
provided
A few help-centres in
Bangalore, reportedly
inadequate in resources
No specic help-centres,
but oine alternatives
provided
Proposed Changes in
2017-18 and future
• No uploads will be required in Maharashtra. Applicants need to tick ‘yes’ that they have the certicates.
• Aadhar Card of parents as well as children will be practically mandatory for the RTE 12(1)(c) applications
in all the four States.
• In Karnataka, applicant’s postal address will be used to automatically determine the ward/ village using
fuzzy logic (nding/ guessing variable answers based on partial knowledge).
What works and the
challenges
• e Rajasthan system creates a more inclusive platform than other States by providing online as well
as oine mode. Also, unlike the Madhya Pradesh system, the oine application in Rajasthan can be
submitted at a school. e school is supposed to upload the details, and also provide a receipt to the
applicant for further tracking. One can approach as many schools in their neighbourhood to submit the
application. No internet or technological literacy is required.
• e oine application in Rajasthan ensures instant verication of documents at the school level, thus
increasing the probability of admission post successful allotment. is process is then further veried
by department ocials, who visit the school to check presence of the admitted children, and their
documents.
• e systems in Maharashtra and Karnataka oer administratively convenient alternatives. ey
require less resources from the State and no burden on schools to receive the application. e help-centres
are neither fully-equipped, nor known to be fully functional in all towns throughout the application
period.
• e cost of help-centres and oine alternatives is virtually shied to the underprivileged parents, when
the application mode is ‘online only’, since they are supposed to get internet, visit government oces for
inquiry, and submit the online forms through external help. A few parents interviewed in all the States
responded that the cost per online application can be upto thousand rupees depending on cyber cafe
charges during the application season, local travel, and the certicates required immediately at the time of
application.
• Publicity of school prole oine: ere is no oine alternative for parents to read about the school.
ey might benet from a school catalogue. Currently, the online forms accessible to parents do not
provide more details, other than school name, location, and medium of instruction.
MATCH
e allocation of vacancies to eligible applicants is done
through a computerised programme, popularly called as
‘RTE Lottery’. e lottery logic in the four States is discussed
in detail in Chapter 8.
ADMIT
Aer the lottery results are announced online and via SMS
in English, the applicants are supposed to approach their
designated schools for admission within a prescribed period
of a week or two. While these requirements vary slightly
across the States, the problems faced by applicants tend to be
similar, as shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Post-lottery Process for RTE 12(1)(c) in the four States
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Karnataka Rajasthan
Admission Period
(Tentative/
Approximate)
(Subject to District)
School Registration:
Jan-May 2017
Application:
Feb-Jun 2017
Admission:
May-Jun 2017
School Registration:
Till 9 May 2017
Online Application:
Till 31 May 2017
Admission:
Till 20 June 2017
School Registration:
By February 2017
Online Application:
Till 15 April 2017
Admission:
April-May 2017
School Registration:
Before 11 April 2017
Online Application:
Till 30 April 2017
Admission:
Till 9 May 2017
What works and the
challenges
• It is necessary that the admission of RTE 12(1)(c) applicants is synchronised with that of the other
students. Because of delay in admission process, the RTE 12(1)(c) children face academic loss. Also,
parents, waiting for the lottery results, are forced into a dilemma of opting for a paid seat in unaided
schools. If the admissions are synchronised, then parents can take informed decision about the admission
quota. Also, the academic loss can be avoided.
Document requirements Applicants need to
produce hard-copies of
all the original certicates
to the school authorities.
e certicates must
match with the uploaded
copies (not applicable in
2017).
Applicants need to
produce originals of all
the certicates to the
education ocer at the
school or a designated
BRC Oce.
Applicants need to
produce originals of
all the certicates to
the school authorities.
e certicate numbers
must match with
those provided in the
application.
Applicants need to
produce originals of all
the certicates to the
school authorities.
What works and the
challenges
• In the Madhya Pradesh system, applicant documents are veried by an education department ocial
at the BRC Oce or the one visiting the school. e list of applicants, whose documents have been
successfully veried, is sent to the school as admitted candidates. is system removes the burden of
document verication from school. Also, it ensures that schools admit the candidates post verication.
• Regulating the post-allotment process, setting-up help-centres for aggrieved parents, and
discouraging any payment of fees by running awareness campaigns for parents and school sta is
necessary to meet the objectives of this stage.
Although the document verication process is regulated by the department of education, schools
have certain discretion in this process. is oen leads to arbitrary rejection of admission by the
school. Many big private schools are known for not allowing the RTE 12(1)(c) applicants to enter
their premises even aer successful allotment. Such applicants are oen marked as ‘not approached’
in the admission system.
Almost all the schools in all the States are known for charging non-tuition fees from the RTE 12(1)(c)
candidates. ey inform the candidates of such charges in advance, thus discouraging the admissions.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 25
CHAPTER 3:
GRASSROOTS OBSERVATIONS:
ALIENATED CONTEXT, FLAWED DESIGN
Harshad Barde
Kagad Kach Patra Kashtakari Panchayat (KKPKP), Pune11
e RTE 12(1)(c) admission faces multiple hurdles in its
implementation, because of the aws in its procedural design,
as well as because of its alienation to the context. Here, we
share a few ndings and experiences of working on the RTE
12(1)(c) related issues in Pune city, and underline the need to
improve various aspects of the application process.
CONTEXT AND ITS RELEVANCE IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION
Limited channels of spreading awareness
It has been almost six years since the RTE 12(1)(c) has been
implemented in Pune. Still, the persons belonging to the
eligible communities and income groups are not made fully
aware of 12(1)(c) provisions and process. Even two months
aer commencement of admissions process (referring to
admissions for academic year 2017-18), it is found that
many parents are unaware that the RTE applications process
has already taken place.
e entire communication by the government takes a
form of press releases, which appear in select newspapers.
e poorest and most marginalized are unable to get this
information on time. e press releases are usually issued
only a week or two prior to the commencement date of
admissions. is leaves little time for aspiring parents to
obtain Income / Caste / Disability Certicates necessary for
the application. e only other ocial source of information
is the website i.e. the RTE 12(1)(c) portal, which is
technologically inaccessible to the most marginalised.
e reach of government’s awareness activities should be
increased by using non-text modes of communication
such as TV and Radio. It needs to be supplemented
with traditional ways of direct communication such as
pamphlet distribution, loud speakers, help desks, and group
meetings in low income group residential areas and slums.
Local municipal authorities, and the primary education
directorate of the State Government have regularly
promised publicity through non-print / non-text media.
However, they have failed to do so. One recurring excuse
given by them is that the total number of applications is
higher than the total number of vacancies available, which
they take as a proxy for high awareness. is argument is
fallacious as there is an overlap of applications in crowded
urban areas, and a dearth thereof in fringe areas or upper
class areas. Similarly, the total number of applications also
includes incorrect, incomplete, and possibly duplicate
applications.
Peculiar Cases:
Sangita Navgire of Sanjay Park slum led an online
application form for the RTE Admission through a local
tout at a cyber café. A month later, she discovered that
the application was submitted for the local Kendriya
Vidyalaya School, and not for a private unaided school
under RTE 12(1)(c). She has to wait another year for
applying again.
Namrata Yuvraj Shinde’s application was led at the
PMC’s (Pune Municipal Corporation) local help centre.
e help centre sta chose an incorrect standard (level)
for Namrata’s age. is led to no schools being displayed
by the website for Namrata’s application. e application
was then le incomplete online. However, Namrata’s
parents were made to believe that the application had
been led.
In the case of Namrata’s sister, Narayani Yuvraj Shinde,
the same centre chose a single language as medium of
instruction (Marathi), while making the application
on her behalf. is decision of the centre reduced the
potential number of schools to which she could apply by
more than y percent. As a result, both Namrata and
Narayani have not received any admission this year.
[11] KKPKP is a trade union of waste-pickers and itinerant scrap buyers
registered in 1993, based in Pune, India.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 27
Want of resourceful and responsive help-centres,
Expectations of literacy
Most parents from the eligible categories have never seen
a physical map, much less the Google maps being used in
online application. ere is no possibility of parents from
the poorest, and the most marginalised backgrounds being
able to pinpoint their residential location on Google maps,
which is an essential part of the application process. ey
are completely dependent on local touts, cyber café, local
NGOs, and poorly resourced help-centres for this vital part.
is makes applications highly susceptible to mistakes,
especially as parents have no way of ascertaining the
accuracy of location inserted during the application process.
e local body, Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), sets
up help centres in schools across the city. Some of these
schools lack regular electricity supply, internet connectivity,
and printers etc. is basic infrastructure is required for
proper completion of the application process. Every year,
it is found that inadequate facilities, and lack of trained
sta has caused delays and shut downs at the application
centres. is makes the application process extremely
painful for parents, who have to wait, or make repeated
visits to the centre. It costs them their day’s work, and hence
a signicant loss of income. Despite repeated requests, the
government continues keeping the help-centres closed on
public holidays and weekends.
Workers in the informal economy do not have the luxury
of paid leaves or holidays. ey are oen on unpaid leaves,
foregoing daily wages, or even risking their jobs in order
to spend days at the application centres. e slow speed of
activities, delays, malfunctioning equipment, untrained sta
lead to parents having to spend multiple days, and missing
work and income for making applications. is is a high
cost that parents from the marginalised communities are
made to pay, since the help-centres are not well-equipped
and supportive.
e delays are not only caused by poorly maintained
help-centres, but also by lack of quick response from the
associated government oces. e task for acquiring caste
certicates is long and arduous. Parents without caste
certicates are simply excluded from the process. Even
income certicates take a minimum of eight working days
to be made available, and the process can stretch upto one
month in some cases. ese issues are oen exacerbated by
poor planning in terms of dates for applications process.
For example, the 2017 admissions process was conducted
during elections in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad. e
incidence of elections alongside the application process le
little government resources for the parents, as the entire
machinery was busy in the election-related works.
Example:
Naitik Ashok Wadmare (2014) was allocated a school
more than 15 km from his house (aerial distance),
because the help-centre merely searched for the name
of his locality (Gandhinagar) without conrming the
city in which it was located (Pune instead of Pimpri
Chinchwad).
DEFICIENCIES IN THE ONLINE PORTAL
School’s discretion in deciding the entry-level
On January 10, 2017, the School Education and Sports
Department of the Government of Maharashtra issued a
Government resolution stating, inter alia, that ‘the schools
should decide the entry level’. is led to widespread
confusion as to whether schools were allowed to specify
‘class one’ as their entry level despite having pre-primary
classes. Only aer several protests by social activities, and
inquiries through media, the government claried that the
schools did not have liberty to ‘decide’ the entry level, but
merely had the obligation to ‘choose’ the correct entry level
during the registration process. is clarication, however,
was sent through a quote in the media, and not an ocial
communication channel.
Parents applying under RTE 12(1)(c) face resistance
from schools, when they approach for admissions. e
Government of Maharashtra has not paid reimbursements
to many schools for admission to pre-primary classes.
is has made schools extremely reluctant to admitting
children in pre-primary. Additionally, each school seems
to specify its own upper age limit for admission, although
the minimum age for application has been specied by the
government.
Articial re-categorisation of SC-ST as ‘General’
During the application process, only those applying under
the caste criterion, i.e. those having caste certicates,
can specify their caste category such as SC or ST. Parents
applying under the income criterion are forced to specify
their caste as ‘General’, irrespective of their caste. is
happens because of a defect in the application. In the
online application, one has to rst choose their religion and
caste. If the applicant chooses SC or ST as their caste, the
next option asks the applicant whether they have a caste
certicate. If there is no caste certicate, then the applicant
has to go back and change their caste as ‘General’ in order to
apply using income as the eligibility criterion.
When this issue was brought up to the ocials, some
dismissed it as a minor process-level error. Nevertheless,
it has led to widespread misunderstanding and
misinformation that those applying under income criterion
will ‘lose’ access to caste-based government schemes in the
future, since they are registering in the school under income
criterion of ‘General’ category.
Representative Cases
Mira Vishal Kamble, a waste-picker from Bibvewadi in
Pune, went to the PMC’s application help centre at the
Hutatma Babu Genu Primary School in Bibvewadi to
ll her application. ough she belongs to a Scheduled
Caste, her husband’s family does not have a caste
certicate for proof of the same. She then chose to apply
under the income (< 1 Lakh) criterion for RTE 12(1)
(c). At rst, the PMC education ocer manning the
help centre turned her away citing the reason that she
did not have a caste certicate. Aer repeated attempts,
the ocer agreed to le her application warning
her that if she chooses to apply under the income
criterion, her child’s caste will be recorded as ‘Open’ in
the government database, and in the school records.
Consequently, the child would not be eligible for any
caste-based government assistance in the future. She
then refused to le the application until KKPKP activists
intervened, and asked the ocer not to misinform
parents in such a manner.
Sangram Amol Kuchekar: e help centre sta led
the application for parent under the caste criterion,
despite the parents not having a caste certicate. Aer
allotment, the parents had to spend 4 days speaking
with local authorities and schools to have the eligibility
criteria changed and the admission conrmed. e
school and local authorities both informed the parent
that the child will lose out on any caste related benets
in future, unless a caste certicate was produced, and
submitted in the school.
SUGGESTIONS
Every year, there has been a spate of changes from the
government regarding the admissions process. e
admission rules were revised in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,
and 2017. e government regulations and circulars have
caused changes in age limits, documentation requirements,
entry level, online process, scanning of documents and not
scanning of documents, verication and non-verication of
documents by local authorities, formation and dissolution
of grievance redressal committees etc. Such experiments
have led to confusion in the public’s mind as they are not
accompanied by any clarications or publicity.
Rather, there is a need to bring coherence in these eorts.
e government directives need to acknowledge the
diculties faced by the parents due to issues discussed
above. Amongst other initiatives that could address the
problem of RTE 12(1)(c) admissions, we suggest the
following changes to be considered.
1. Registration process for schools should commence at
least three months prior to the admissions process.
e delays in registration by schools result in delays in
commencement of the admission process.
2. e admission process should commence latest in
December so as to be simultaneous, or prior to the
admission process of schools for the other 75% seats.
3. Grandparents should be allowed to le application on
behalf of children, especially where children are residing
with, or they are being looked aer by grandparents.
4. Responsible, responsive, and resourceful sta is needed
in the help-centres. Capacity building and training of
sta along with NGOs, volunteers etc. for proper ling
of application forms should be done on regular basis.
5. e application window should be open for at least two
months period.
6. e help-centres should be open on weekends and
public holidays to provide access to parents, who cannot
visit on weekdays or might have to sacrice their day’s
work for the same.
7. ere should be an RTE cell in every city for immediate
redressal of grievances. A helpline should be linked to
such RTE Cell for quick redressal.
8. e awareness campaigns should have oine mode
including pamphlet distribution, and community
meetings in slum and rural areas.
9. Dependency on mobile phones should be removed, as
many parents lack mobile phone access. Also, messaging
in local language should be undertaken, wherever
mobile phones are being used.
10. ere should be a dedicated, post-admission support for
all the parents, so that all schools admit the candidates
without harassment or charging any fee.
11. ere should be clarity and consistency on pre-school
entry levels – that every school having pre-school is
mandated to provide admissions to the lowest level
under 12(1)(c).
12. Currently, parents are only allowed to apply for
one school beyond 3 kilometers from their place of
residence. is should be expanded so that parents can
choose to apply to multiple schools, subject to other
constraints.
13. e government should release claricatory circulars/
notications to schools regarding provision of free
entitlements such as writing material, textbooks,
uniforms, shoes etc. to school children admitted under
12(1)(c). ese circulars should be publicised on ocial
government websites.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 29
14. All the free entitlements should be comprehensively
listed in an ocial notication. ey should include
transportation, annual days, outdoor activities, co-
curricular activities, eld trips etc.
15. Strict and immediate action should be taken against
the schools that refuse admissions under 12(1)(c), or
spread wrong information regarding the RTE 12(1)
(c) provisions, thereby discouraging the parents from
admitting their children.
CHAPTER 4:
THE 12(1)(c) AND STRUGGLES IN MUMBAI
Sudhir Paranjape
Anudanit Shiksha Bachao Samiti, Mumbai
INTRODUCTION
e Anudanit Shiksha Bachao Samiti (ASBS) was formed in
2008 to spearhead a struggle to prevent the closure of Sheth
M.A. High School in Mumbai. Situated in a prime location
close to the station, the school is one of the oldest schools in
Andheri (West). It was visited by Mahatma Gandhi in the
pre-independence period. For many years, it has catered to
the downtrodden sections of society, especially the Muslim
community in Gilbert Hill area. e struggle for the school
concluded successfully. It also gave rise to the formation of
ASBS.
Post the 2012 SC judgement upholding the constitutional
validity of the Right to Education Act (RTE), the team
working in the ASBS, under the convenorship of Com. K.
Narayan, decided to use the organisational platform to work
for implementation of the Act in Andheri and vicinity12.
In year 2012-13, we succeeded in getting 150 children
admitted to about 25-30 schools in Mumbai, both aided as
well as unaided. is was signicant given the hurdles faced
by ordinary parents at the oces of the BMC Ward, and
at the oce of Tehsildar of Andheri Taluka for procuring
Income Certicates. Our eort was supported by the
Students’ Federation of India (SFI) and the Janawadi Mahila
Sanghatan (JMS).
During the second year of implementation (2013-14), we
organised a protest against the delay by Government of
Maharashtra in issuing the required notication for starting
admissions under the 25% reserved quota. e notication
was not released until the end of February 2013. Over 500
parents from Andheri and Dharavi area participated in the
protest.
ONLINE PROCESS AND LEGAL BATTLES
In 2014-15, the Government of Maharashtra brought two
major changes. Firstly, it introduced the online system
of admissions for a segment of population that is largely
unlettered, and computer-illiterate. Secondly, it created a
new post of Education Commissioner ostensibly to manage
the RTE activities. In eect, a signicant proportion of
government machinery was employed for the online
implementation of RTE 12(1)(c).
In the rst year of online implementation, we could help
about 1000 parents to submit their application forms online.
Along with this eort, we led our rst PIL (Public Interest
Litigation) in the Bombay High Court. Amongst other
issues, we highlighted in this PIL that the online process had
le the aided schools out of its purview. It was also shown
that the schools exercised discretion in admitting children
even with valid allotment letters. Nevertheless, there were
shortcomings in our petition. Its failure could be attributed
to our lack of knowledge about the Act, and about the arena
of litigation. Learning from the mistakes, we led the next
petition against the cancellation of pre-primary admissions
under RTE 12(1)(c) by the Government of Maharashtra in
2015. e hearing of the petition is still in process.
Along with these struggles, we participated in the
proceedings of Maharashtra State Commission for
Protection of Child Rights (MSCPCR) in Mumbai. e
intervention could support about 20 children over the years,
who were rejected by the schools for admission under 12(1)
(c), or were denied free entitlements such as books and
uniforms.
We also found that children with disabilities, who have been
included under 12(1)(c) as per the recent amendment to
the Act, receive little support from the government in ling
their application or securing admission aer the allotments.
e admission process has to provide oine alternatives to
such applicants. It should also account for mental age of the
applicants, not restricting itself to physical disability.
At present, there is an issue of entry-level for admission
under RTE 12(1)(c). By Government Resolution dated 10
January 2017, schools have been given option to register
their entry point for the 12(1)(c) online admissions.
Following the same, a large number of schools have opted to
register grade 1 as their entry level, irrespective of whether
they have pre-primary stage. As a result, the number of seats
has reduced from approximately 12,000 in 2016-17 to under
9,000 in 2017-1813.
[12] See : Paranjape, S.M. (N.d.). ASBS Convention Calls for Holistic
Implementation of RTE Act. People’s Democracy. http://peoplesdemocracy.
in/2015/0222_pd/asbs-convention-calls-holistic-implementation-rte-act
[13] Also, this decrease in the number is irrespective of pre-primary or grade 1
class-size. According to the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 21
January 2015, the schools are required to ll the balance in grade 1, if the
pre-primary classes are smaller.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 31
INEFFICIENCY AND REDUNDANCY IN ONLINE
PROCESS
Based on the data obtained through RTI (Right to
Information) applications in Mumbai, it is evident that the
current lottery system leaves large number of vacancies in
the unaided schools, despite potential applicants. e data
gathered through RTI applications underlines the need to
examine the lottery design, and make it more inclusive.
e data is veriable to the area level. For example, in
Kurla- a locality in Mumbai, it was found that only 3 out of
10 applicants had received any allotment in 2016, despite a
large number of schools located in that area. ese schools
were either excluded from the admission process, or the
applicants could not apply to them given the GPS-based
neighbourhood restrictions.
Additionally, it is pertinent to note that the data obtained
through the RTI application has school-wise details of
vacancies in tabular and computerised form. Moreover,
due to the UDISE code system implemented many years
ago, it is mandatory for schools to upload all pertinent data
on a regular basis, including data pertaining to RTE 12(1)
(c) admissions. Hence, it is redundant to ask the schools to
register afresh every year, which also provides them certain
discretion in entering the number of available seats for 12(1)
(c).
Table 4: Vacancies left after the RTE 12(1)(c)
lottery
Academic year Number of
rejected applicants
(Sorry/No Message
recipients)
(approx.)
Unlled Vacancies
(approx.)
2013-14 (Oine) 350 7000
2014-15 500 4000
2015-16 750 9000
Source: Based on the response given by the Government of Maharashtra and the
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to our PIL in 2014-15.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
e data and our experience of working in Mumbai
suggests that schools have extraordinary discretion in the
admission process, which limits the success of RTE 12(1)
(c). While access to schools has improved considerably
with introduction of the online admissions process, the
procedural diculties have not been addressed adequately.
Lack of political will and eort is a serious impediment in
bringing a change in this scenario. We need collective eort
from people, along with systematic government initiatives,
for successful implementation of the RTE.
Dharna by ASBS at Azad Maidan, Feb 2017 Community interaction by ASBS members
CHAPTER 5:
GUJARAT: SHIFTING FROM OFFLINE TO ONLINE
Ishu Gupta, Karan Singhal, Nisha Vernekar, Ankur Sarin,
Ambrish Dongre
INTRODUCTION
For 12(1)(c) admissions of the academic year 2017-18, an
online portal was newly introduced in Gujarat State. Given
the shi in mode, this chapter discusses the changes in
the design and implementation of the application process.
It also mentions applicants’ experiences in this regard.
First, we compare the ocial design of implementing
this provision (across basic stages of implementation) in
previous years with the online system adopted this year.
Further, we compare the process on-ground in stages,
highlighting where we believed it diered from the ocial
design. Issues persisting with the oine process are
discussed along with the those that have emerged with the
way online process is carried out.
IMPLEMENTATION SINCE 2013
Unlike other States implementing 12(1)(c), Government of
Gujarat introduced the mandate reserving a limited number
of seats based on the budget provision i.e. setting their
own targets (instead of mandating it in all eligible unaided
private schools). e RTE 12(1)(c) mandate was selectively
introduced as a “pilot” in the year 2013 with the concerned
government resolution stating that: “is scheme (provision
12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act) is being introduced
in 8 Municipal Corporations on experimental basis. Under
the experimental basis in 8 Municipal Corporations around
5300 children will be covered”14. While the general rules
for application, allotment, and admission were similar
throughout the State, the implementation was conducted at
the district level. e Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
was one of the rst districts in Gujarat to implement
the provision, and has been relatively more successful
in increasing number of applicants, allotments, and
admissions15.
As shown in Table 1, the number of admissions under
Section 12(1)(c) was low in the State with a total of only 549
admissions secured in 2013-14. e targets for number of
admissions during each admission cycle set by the state were
not met until the 2016-17 cycle. In 2017-18, this target was
raised to 60,000. Given that 25 percent of the total number
of seats in private unaided schools (including minority) in
Gujarat is around 92,00016 as per the DISE, these targets
still seem to be lower than what might be expected from the
complete implementation of the mandate. However, since
DISE does not allow us to identify minority schools, we are
unable to ascertain this.
Table 5.1: Admission targets set and secured in the
State of Gujarat
Academic Year Target Admissions
2013-14 5,300 549
2014-15 18,300 12,601
2015-16 30,000 28,553
2016-17 46,000 48,383
2017-18 60,000 62,419
Source: Primary data, received from the Gujarat State School Textbook Board
Director’s oce, Gandhinagar.
OFFLINE PROCESS 20132016
Till the most recent admission cycle of 2017-18, the process
of application and allotment was executed manually
through an oine system. e steps were:
1. Applicants were to collect application forms from ocial
help centres set up in government schools. ey were
required to ll the form with personal details of the
child and parents/guardians of the child and attach the
required documents such as birth certicate, address
proof, income certicate, BPL card etc. for application.
2. A list of schools located in the ward was to be provided
at help centres, from which applicants chose schools.
Applicants were to write the names of the schools they
wanted to apply to on the application forms. ey were
allowed to select a maximum of 5 schools that were
within their “neighbourhood”.
[14] Education Department, Government of Gujarat, 2013. Resolution
No.KhPSh-102012-727646-Ch, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar., Retrieved
from- http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_les/mhrd/les/upload_document/
Gujarati_Notication_admission.pdf
[15] Despite having 8.3 percent of the total population between 0-6 years of
age in the State (Government of India, 2011, Provisional Population Totals
Paper 1 of 2011. Retrieved from http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-
results/prov_data_products_gujarat.html), Ahmedabad secured around
30.45 percent of the total admissions under this provision in Gujarat in
2016-17 admission cycle. Of 48,383 admissions in the State of Gujarat in
the 2016-17 application cycle, 14,735 children secured admissions through
this provision in Ahmedabad alone. (Retrieved from: http://timesondia.
indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/14735-students-admitted-under-RTE-
ACT-in-Ahmedabad/articleshow/52398554.cms
[16] State of the Nation Report, 2015. e number of seats mentioned here is
based on DISE data, and does not exclude seats in minority schools.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 33
[17] is refers to generating awareness about 12(1)(c) and its benets prior
to application, and about the process of applying, eligibility criteria, etc.
during the application process.
a. e specic regulations pertaining to
“neighbourhood” has diered from year to year.
In 2015-16, the road distance of 6 km or less
between a household and school was dened as the
neighbourhood; this changed to the electoral ward
dening the neighbourhood in 2016-17; for the
2017-18 admission cycle, the criteria reverted to the
the road distance rule.
3. Applicants submitted completed application forms at the
help centres to ocials who checked their forms before
accepting them. An acknowledgement receipt was to be
provided to the applicants aer necessary verication.
4. Applicants were to be informed of their allotment to a
school via post or SMS on the mobile phone numbers
registered in the application forms. Parents were
supposed to receive a notice conrming their allotment
via post which had to be presented at the school when
they went to take admission. In case of non-allotment,
no notication was sent to the applicants.
As mentioned, the application process shied to online
mode since academic year 2017-18. e next section
describes similarities and contrasts between the two.
COMPARING THE DESIGN: OFFLINE VS ONLINE
APPLICATION PROCESS IN GUJARAT
Table 5.2 outlines ocial implementation machinery and
stages in the process of the application and allotment cycle
in 2016-17 (oine manual system), and changes in the
process due to online system adopted in 2017-18.
Some notable changes made were:
Centralisation of the process at the State- level, which
allowed for uniformity of implementation across
districts, and for rural and urban districts.
e application forms were shied to online portal that
could be accessed through internet connection, and
an oine application process was designed to assist
e-illiterate applicants.
Changes were made to the school selection criterion.
In the 2016-17 application cycle, schools were selected
ward-wise, but this was reversed in this cycle to
a distance-wise criterion based on an applicant’s
residential address.
e allotment process was computerised, based on pre-
decided lottery logic.
e online system also brought about a few new means
of accessing information, and verifying and submitting
applications, in addition to the mechanisms already in place.
ese are reected as new inclusions in the table below.
Table 5.2: Changes in design of implementation from manual to online process of application and admission
Stage of Process Oine Online
Implementation
Authority and
Guidelines
• District-wise Change
• Centralized at State level
Medium of
information17
• Newspaper advertisement
• Notication about number of seats
and eligibility criteria was posted on
government school notice boards
Change
• While notices were still present in government school notice
boards, the list of schools provided to them was from the
previous cycle (when school selection was ward-wise, not
distance-wise), which was later removed to avoid confusion
New Inclusion
• Updated notications and advertisements were published on
the online application portal.
Nature of Help
Centre
• Help centres were set-up in government
schools across the district
Change
• e help centres in government schools were converted to
‘receiving centres’
• Ocials at these centres were responsible for only checking
documents before forms were accepted for submission
Table 5.2: Changes in design of implementation from manual to online process of application and admission
Stage of Process Oine Online
Application Form • Was collected from help centres set-up
in government schools or the DEO, aer
showing documents
Change
• Was accessible on website, through any internet connection
Assistance for
preparing the form
for submission
• Ocials at Help Centres were responsible
for assisting applicants in form collection,
school selection, form completion, and
checking of documents before forms were
accepted for submission
Change
• For e-illiterate applicants the option of printing blank forms
from the website was provided, which could be lled with
the assistance of ocials present at the receiving centres
• Step- by- step tutorials provided on the website for e-literate
applicants (in English and Gujarati)
School Selection • Formation of district committee to create
list of schools
• Lists of schools available in the ward were
published at help centres where forms were
collected and submitted
• 5 school preferences could be given by
applicants from urban, and 3 from rural
Ahmedabad
Change
• List of eligible schools was identied automatically once
applicants located their residential address on a map during
application process. Schools would be displayed if they
fell within a radius of 1 KM, 3 KM, and 6 KM from the
applicant’s address
• 3 preferences could be given by all applicants
New inclusion
• List of all schools and number of seats available, in the state
and across districts, were provided on website
Submission and
verication/
approval of forms
• Were manually checked- First at help
centres and then at DPEO oce. (district
Primary Education Ocer)
• Form approval would be on the basis of
eligibility of applicant and submission of
prerequisite valid documents
New Inclusion
• Additional opportunity given to applicants to prevent
rejection prior to allotment- DPEO notied applicants
with incomplete forms/ minor errors to gather additional
documentation post the application deadline
Lottery/Allocation • Priority order pre-decided based on
Statewide criteria
• Manual allotment process
• Single round of allotment
• Priority order pre-decided based on Statewide criteria
Change
• Computerized allotment process
• Provisional allotment was followed by nal allotment (for
those who did not get seats in the rst round)
Announcement of
Result
• rough an SMS
• Ocial allotment receipt sent by post to
applicants’ homes
• rough an SMS
Change
• Ocial allotment receipt was available on website for print.
New inclusion
• Applicants were given private logins on the website to check -
1. Approval of form at DPEO, 2. application status, 3. Reason
for form rejection, and 4. Allotment and school details
Reporting at School • Required to present allotment notice
received by post at schools
Change
• Required to present the printed allotment notice at schools
Grievance
and Feedback
Mechanism
• Authorities: Rural- Gram panchayat oce,
C.R.C oce, Taluka Panchayat oce,
DPEO/ District Project Coordinator
Oce, Urban- Ward Oce, CRC oce,
Municipality and Administrative oce
• Formation of “District Committee”
New inclusion
• Helpline number provided
• Feedback and query form was available and opened to all on
website
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 35
LOTTERY LOGIC FOR ADMISSION CYCLE 20171818:
e online portal for Gujarat followed a design that
avoids duplicate application. Once a candidate’s details
are recorded into the system, every new application is
checked for duplicity with respect to the recorded details.
A combination of keys including parent’s Aadhar number,
name, date of birth, and bank account information is used
to identify a unique applicant record.
If the applicant record is created online successfully, it
implies that the record is unique in the system. Post this
submission, another step is introduced to test the validity
of information. Every applicant has to report to a nearby
receiving centre with appropriate documents. e receiving
centre would then validate applicant’s record. us, every
application approved by the receiving centre is considered
unique and valid. All such applications are considered in the
lottery.
All applicants are allotted one seat out of the preferences
(maximum three) they have submitted online. e order
of the selection of these preferences plays no role in
determining the allocation as once the preferences are
made, they are by default arranged on the basis of distance
between the school and the household.
1. e allocation is ‘merit-based’. Here, merit refers to the
categorization of candidates according to the following
criteria.
a. Category: e eligible categories for 12(1)(C) in
Gujarat have been ordered, from rank 1 to 1519.
Applicant with higher ranks have higher chances of
being allocated a seat.
Rank Category
1 Orphan Child
2 Child in need or care and protection
3 Child belonging to child care institution
4 Child labour/Children of migrating labourers
5 Mentally Challenged/ Child cerebral palsy
6 Child with special needs
7 HIV aected children
Rank Category
8 SC/ST BPL
9 SC/ST Non-BPL
10 SEBC/OBC NDNT
11 SEBC/OBC BPL
12 SEBC/OBC Non-BPL
13 BPL
14 General Category Rural
15 General Category Urban
b. Distance: Based on the GPS location entered by
an applicant, the distance between their residence
and school is calculated. is exact measurement
of distance determines the priority with which an
allocation will be done. For example, a candidate
residing within 0.5 km from school is given a higher
priority over a candidate within 0.7 km from the
same school.
c. Age: While deciding the allocation between two
candidates, whose category and distance are
identical, the older applicant is given a higher
priority. In the case of a tie on age as well,
alphabetical order is followed.
3. e algorithm
a. e allocation moves with an alphabetically sorted
list of applicants.
b. Amongst these applicants, all the applicants
belonging to category 1 are considered rst.
c. ey are allotted the nearest school chosen by them.
In case of a tie, the older applicant is allotted the
school.
d. Aer all applicants in category 1 are allotted a seat,
the next category is considered.
COMPARING ONGROUND EXPERIENCES:
OFFLINE VS ONLINE APPLICATION PROCESS IN
GUJARAT
e table below outlines implications of the design of
implementation to the experience of applicants. We discuss
those stages where on-ground experiences diered from the
ocial design outlined in Table 5.2 above.
Some notable observations:
As a direct result of the online application process, cyber
cafes became an integral party to the application cycle.
It was observed that many applicants were completely
dependent on the services of these unregulated third
parties.
[18] e information presented here is based on author’s interactions with
relevant government ocials in May 2017.
[19] e ocial lottery logic for the State of Gujarat has 9 ranks; with rank 8
referring to “Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes”, and rank 9 referring
to “Socially and educationally backward class/ Other backward class”. e
subcategories from rank 8-15 were introduced in the 2017-18 computerized
allotment cycle.
(Education Department, Government of Gujarat, 2013. Resolution
No.KhPSh-102012-727646-Ch, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar., Retrieved
from- http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_les/mhrd/les/upload_document/
Gujarati_Notication_admission.pdf)
Due to unfamiliarity with computers, applicants faced
several problems while lling their forms. One major
issue- locating applicants’ residences using Google
maps- was found to be challenging for applicants,
initially due to errors in the design of the form.
e computerized allotment process allowed for two
rounds of allotment to be conducted, possibly to
increase the number of total allotted seats, however was
delayed repeatedly due to diculties in designing the
mechanism
Unlike previous years in which many applicants were
not informed of their application result, announcements
of results in this cycle were made online, and individual
applicants could use their private login IDs to check
their application status.
Table 5.3: Changes in applicants’ experiences- from oine to online process of application and admission
Stage Oine Online
Implementation
Authority and
Guidelines
• Unclear rules for applicants living at the
boundary between two districts. is was
because boundaries are not clearly dened,
and rules diered from district to district
• Dierent and unclear timelines for start and
cessation of process between districts, and
within districts
Change
• Single deadline and set of regulations observed by the entire
State
Awareness • Newspaper advertisement published just
prior to cycle
• Schools visited did not have notices stating
eligibility criteria displayed
• Diusion of information from earlier
applicant’s family, friends, NGOs/ voluntary
organisations etc.
• Eorts of ward councilors increased
awareness
New inclusion
• Eligibility criteria, school list, and other FAQs were made
available on the website
• Government helpline was not functional
Assistance for
form- collection,
form- lling and
submission
For form collection, lling of forms,
instructions for process people received
assistance from:
• Ocials at help centres
• Voluntary Organisations
• Anganwadi workers
• Friends, Family, Neighbours
• Agents
For making documents
• Agents
Change
For form collection, lling forms, printing forms, viewing status
of form
• Cyber café
• Fewer organisations individuals, and anganwadi workers,
could help as they now required to have access to computers
and internet facilities.
New inclusion
• Option of oine application process could not be used by
applicants as most of the receiving centres did not have
enough resources to upload their forms online, or the
infrastructure to print them.
School Selection • Distance criteria for selection of schools
was not stated to applicants at the time of
application process leading to selection of
schools they were ineligible for
Change
• Distance criteria made clear to applicants
• Schools were not mapped by location causing errors in
selection process
Lottery/Allocation • Violation of rules for priority of applicants
– in some cases BPL card-holders were
prioritized over orphans, children with
disabilities, etc.
Change
• Lottery logic was as per State rules
• Second round of allotment was conducted (primarily to
rectify cases where schools allotted were at a distance of six
kilometres or greater from an applicant’s home)
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 37
Table 5.3: Changes in applicants’ experiences- from oine to online process of application and admission
Stage Oine Online
Announcement of
Result
• Many applicants were not informed of their
results as notications sent by post did not
reach them
Change
• Applicants could check status of their application from any
internet connection
Reporting at School • Post of notice was delayed/ not received by
many, SMS with notice of allotment was not
accepted in schools
Change
• Applicants were able to access their notice of allotment at
their convenience, but for a few exceptions: For example-
where there was a delay in updating a few applicants’ status
with the school allotted
• Schools were required to verify notices of allotment using
a unique online prole created for each school. Many were
not aware of the procedure for this, delayed applicants’
admissions
IMPLICATIONS OF DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ONLINE APPLICATION
AND ALLOTMENT SYSTEM
Apart from streamlining the process, and minimizing the
burden of the state’s implementation machinery, there are
potential benets of adopting an online application and
allotment process. Many of the issues that have occurred
in previous years were rectied due to the adoption of the
online design in the current cycle in Gujarat.
MERITS OF THE DESIGN OF GUJARAT’S ONLINE
SYSTEM: RESOLVING ISSUES OF PREVIOUS YEARS
Implementation Authority and Guidelines
Due to centralized implementation at the State level:
Issues due to overlapping districts and unclear
boundaries between districts did not arise,
All implementation errors could be rectied faster due
to a single decision-making authority across districts.
Assistance during process
By providing the option of an oine process of
completing application forms along with the online
process, it could give applicants the convenience to
access forms from anywhere, while preventing them
from incurring higher transaction costs than they
should if they cannot easily traverse the online process
Approval of forms and allotment
An automated allotment process could lead to
Greater transparency as priority of applicants during
allotment must be predened
Consistent lottery logic across the State
Minimization of human error
Grievance redress
Both the feedback form on the website and the helpline
are mechanisms through which applicants could directly
contact authorities at minimal cost
Announcement of results
Applicants can access/ track their applications, anytime
and from anywhere, from time of submission, reducing
delays in transmission of information regarding the
results of their application
ISSUES WITH ONLINE APPLICATION PROCESS IN
201718
Many issues that occurred in the current application cycle
had not been faced in previous years. ey came about as
a result of the design and implementation of the online
system and should be amenable to improvement .
Awareness and clarity of the process and guidelines of the
provision
While ocial notications of rules and regulations, and
deadlines were published on the website, they did not
benet many applicants during this cycle as the online
portal was published only one day prior to the onset of
the application cycle.
Errors in notications on the website led to confusion
amongst applicants across the State.
Examples of errors leading to misinformation and confusion
1. Despite mention in the advertisement, General Category
without BPL cards missing:
e advertisement of the government explicitly
mentioned eligibility of people from ‘General’
caste category without BPL cards having Rs.
68,000 annual income limit for urban residents,
and Rs. 48,000 for rural residents. However, in the
application forms no category was available for
applicants belonging to general category without
BPL cards.
is rule was reversed on 4 March 2017 i.e. 14
days aer the process started, but the reversal was
not publicized with a new advertisement from the
government or on the website.
2. Dierent age criteria for CBSE schools- lack of
information led to application being rejected for ‘not
meeting the age criteria’
As of this year, students applying to CBSE board
could apply if they were completing 6 years of age
as of 1 June 2017. Children applying to any other
board e.g. GSEB, had to complete 5 years of age as of
1 June 2017 (Gujarat State Education Board)
However, the ocial government advertisement
and notications on the online portal did not state
this change. e application form itself had no
constraints linking date of birth to the board of
school that was being applied to.
3. Confusion for migrants because of State-specic
guidelines for validity of documents required for the
process
Caste certicates: For the State of Gujarat, caste
certicates for people falling under OBC category
must adhere to State rules, however SC/ST caste
certicates can be from any State.
Income certicates: must be made from the district
Mamlatdar, and is valid for up to 3 years from
when it is made. Some receiving centres rejected
applications if applicants did not have income
certicates even if they had BPL cards
Aadhar Card and Income Certicate made
mandatory in the presence of alternate proofs: It was
made mandatory in 2017-18 application cycle that
at least one family member have an Aadhar card
linked to a bank account, despite alternative identity
and residence proofs being present
Assistance during process: Applicants were dependent on
unregulated third parties such as cyber cafes, and agents to
complete their forms
Failure of oine assistance option of application forms:
Some receiving centres did not have capacity to both-
check forms being submitted and ll forms. Some did
not have the infrastructure (of computers, internet) to
ll forms.
As a result of the failure of the oine process of lling
application forms, applicants were dependent primarily
on cyber cafes.
ey were unable to access help from neighbours, family
members, or friends as was done in previous years,
because rate of e-literacy is considerably lower than
that of literacy, and requires access to a computer and
internet facilities.
School Selection: Applicants were oen unable to
accurately locate their address on the Google Map provided;
as a result the list of schools that were provided were not
correctly identied. is error occurred due to the following
reasons:
Applicants’ address was located using pincodes and
landmarks; Some ocials at receiving centres did not
accept forms if the address mentioned in an applicant’s
residence-proof documents did not match the GPS
location identied in the online form.
Applicants were asked to enter their postal address,
including their pincode and a landmark. A location
pin was then dropped on the map based primarily
on the landmark and pincode, which were the major
source for tracing the ‘neighbourhood’ location
on the GPS, locating the address on the basis of
pincodes and landmarks posed an issue.
In order to increase accuracy, the applicants could
move the location- pin within a maximum range
of 1000 meters from the location picked up by the
GPS. However since these pins were dropped on the
basis of landmarks and pincodes, and since most
applicants reside in remote areas within a ward,
which dier in size, the location-pin was oen more
than 1000 meters away from the applicant’s exact
address.
Problem of location accuracy and large ward-sizes
explained: Administrative wards are divided on the
basis of population size. Of 64 wards in Ahmedabad
Corporation (urban), 26 wards (as of 2014) are
greater than 4 sq km in area, implying that the
criteria for shiing the location pin within 1 km of
the position located as per the pincode won’t allow
an applicant to select their location accurately. e
largest ward is 57.3 sq km. In 2015, the division
of these 64 wards were restructured to 48 wards
possibly further increasing ward sizes20.
For the most recent admission cycle, the combination of
these issues might have aected the allocation process as the
lottery logic prioritizes the school preferences based on the
distance of a school to an applicant’s home.
[20] Data for exact ward sizes post restructuring is not publicly available.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 39
Grievance redress
Help centres created in previous years that were able to
provide support to applicants with lling forms were
converted to receiving centres. Ocials at some of these
centres were overburdened, and provided with less
information than in previous years
Ocial helpline provided was non-functional
throughout the process of application and allotment
ISSUES WITH IMPLEMENTATION OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF THE ONLINE SYSTEM
ere are certain issues that have persisted since the
previous cycles that cannot be addressed, or lie outside
the scope of the online system. ey require additional
attention to be given by administrative machinery in order
to be resolved.
Awareness about the provision as a right
Since the rst cycle in 2013-14, the government of Gujarat
has not undertaken awareness activities over and above the
newspaper advertisements to broaden reach of the provision
Since 2013, the Gujarat government has advertised the
provision once a year just prior to the commencement
of the application cycle via a newspaper advertisement
published in local newspapers. In the 2017-18
application cycle, the advertisement was published on
20 February when applications opened on 21 February,
2017.
Increasing awareness since 2013 is a result of
involvement of multiple voluntary stakeholders such
as NGOs, academic institutions, and individuals.
Individual ward councillors have led awareness
campaigns in wards across the district since 2015.
Extended deadlines and overlap with private school
admission cycles
In most private schools in Ahmedabad, the new academic
year starts by the rst week of June, and accordingly the
regular admissions process ends prior to that. In previous
years, the allotment and admission process for students
under Section 12(1)(c) would overlap with deadlines
for regular admissions due to which parents waiting for
results of allotment might have missed out on the regular
admission deadlines. is has led to some children losing
a year, if they were unable to secure admissions through
either, the regular process or through section 12(1)(c). Some
private schools are known to use this opportunity to ask
parents to submit the school fees to reserve seats for their
children before the 12(1)(c) deadlines have passed.
is problem of extended and overlapping deadlines
remains an issue with the online system as well. Despite the
process of application ending on 15 March 2017, rst round
of allocation of seats was announced on 15 May 2017 and
the second round, on 25 of May. e online system could
be a means through which the application cycle for section
12(1)(c) can be completed prior to the regular admission
cycle each year.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Information, education and communication:
1) All visitors to the website should be able to easily
access the list of schools in their neighbourhood.
is will additionally be helpful for NGO- and other
volunteers assisting the applicants.
2) All receiving-centres should be fully-equipped with
computer, internet, and printing facilities for submitting
the forms through the oine process. In addition to
currently available ‘receiving centres’, multiple avenues,
such as government schools and block oces, should be
utilized for providing assistance to applicants.
3) Local NGOs, Anganwadi workers, and ward
councillors should be engaged in the campaign to
generate awareness amongst potential applicants, assist
them in accessing crucial information for the process,
form-lling, and in tracking their admission status.
4) Need for a fully functional helpline21: Multiple
telephone helplines providing up-to-date information
should be active throughout the day for schools,
applicants, and departmental sta who might need
clarications. e attendants at these helplines
must have clarity on all updates regarding 12(1)(c)
admissions.
5) e application website should be search engine
optimised (SEO) and equipped to handle heavy trac.
It should appear amongst the top search results for RTE
12(1)(c) admissions in Gujarat.
6) A YouTube video demonstrating school registration
and application submission should be posted on the
website’s home page. It should be regularly updated22.
Applicant registration:
1) e neighbourhood should be dened as applicant’s
own ward or village along with the neighbouring
wards. e experience in Maharashtra and Delhi
informs that the use of geographical positioning is
[21] At the RTE Resource Centre (RTERC), more than twenty calls are received
every hour due to non-functionality of the ocial helpline.
[22] For example, see a video from the Delhi portal: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=9n2ymgymbds.
impractical for catering to the target population under
RTE 12(1)(c).
2) Computing infrastructure needs to be invested in
that can support the potential trac of applicants,
schools and others. During the rst few, and last few
days of the online application process- when trac
was probably heaviest- the server crashed repeatedly.
As a result of this, and due to heavy trac on the site,
automated conrmation receipts were not generated for
all applicants.
3) All schools should be requested to defer other
admissions until the RTE 12(1)(c) admission cycle is
over. Ideally the section 12(1)(c) allotment cycle should
be completed by the end of April- at least a month prior
to the beginning of the academic year- with the month
of May being used for admission for both, those allotted
through 12(1)(c), and those securing seats through the
regular means. e schools should also be prohibited
from charging fees or conrming admission to any
candidate, whether under 12(1)(c) or not, until the RTE
12(1)(c) admission cycle is over.
4) All help-centres should be clearly instructed to
accept oine applications. Applicants should be able
to approach the desks without any knowledge of using
computers23. e attendants should ll the forms and
provide receipts to the applicants.
5) Increased resources should be dedicated for
applicants seeking the various pre-requisite
certicates/ documents from government oces for
the application process24.
Post-application:
1) Post-lottery, every applicant should receive three SMS
messages stating the outcome of their application.
In addition to Gujarati and Hindi, messages in English
should also be sent to avoid font compatibility issues.
Along with SMS, the result notication of results could
be published in newspapers, and in anganwadi centres
or the oce of ward councilors. Applicants should be
able to access their result without remembering their
passwords.
2) In case of non-allotment, the result should mention
‘considered for next round’. Use of negative words such
as ‘rejected’ or ‘unsuccessful’ misleads the applicants.
ey need to be informed that they will be considered
in further rounds. And in cases where their application
has been rejected parents should be notied through the
same means (via SMS) as those whose forms have been
accepted.
3) All help-centres should be active for redressing
queries and grievances throughout the admission
process. ey should function as the rst point of
contact for applicants and school administrators.
Accordingly, departmental sta should be posted. In
cases where the grievance is beyond their authority
they should be able to assist the applicant with whom to
approach and the process for redress.
School proles:
1) All processes from enrolment to reimbursement
should be integrated on the portal. Using a simple
login, schools as well as applicants should be able to
verify and update their details. is is important for
administrative convenience and eciency.
2) All unaided schools should be registered on the
portal. e minority schools should be included so that
they have an option to partake voluntarily. Also, their
admission data before obtaining the minority certicate
can be maintained.
3) School administrators should be trained and
sensitized towards RTE 12(1)(c) admissions.
Adequate support along with training and quick query
redressals should be provided by the local oces of the
Department for fast and accurate registration.
4) Up-to-date and comprehensive school prole should
be created on the portal and made public. Schools
should be able to edit their prole until the portal opens
for admissions. All editing requests should be veried
and approved by respective BEOs. A comprehensive
school prole should include details such as recognition
status and board aliation, school’s intake capacity and
enrolment, address with identied neighbourhood,
school fee, bank account details, and annual
expenditure.
5) A map of school’s neighbourhood should be
publicised. A map of school’s neighbourhood region
should be displayed on school’s website, notice boards,
and the online prole. Any discrepancy should be
redressed by BEOs and higher authorities.
[23] Based on our study, more than 60% of the applicants in Rajasthan ll in
their applications through oine mode because of its convenience and
accessibility.
[24] In the latest application cycle in Ahmedabad, we received complaints that
government oces in the district had notied applicants that certicates
to validate caste, income, BPL, and Aadhar could not be obtained until 10
March, i.e., 5 days before the application deadline.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 41
CHAPTER 6:
IMPLEMENTATION OF 12(1)(c):
EARLY EVIDENCE FROM
URBAN AHMEDABAD
Karan Singhal, Nisha Vernekar, Ambrish Dongre,
Ankur Sarin
Despite the attention that Section 12 (1) (c) of the Right
to Education (RTE) Act continues to receive, the focus
has primarily been in terms of number of applications and
enrolments. Evidence on the actual experience of children
admitted to schools and their parents under the mandate
remains limited. In this chapter, we share initial results
based on a survey of 1642 households residing within
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) area, and who
were thought to be eligible for admission under 12(1)(c)
during 2015-16 admission cycle.
Utilising data collected in this survey, we describe
characteristics of households and compare them across
stages of application, allotment, and admission. We also
describe experiences of applicants of 12(1)(c) during the
application and admission process. Finally, we compare
schooling experiences of parents and students studying
in government schools, those studying in private schools
through 12(1)(c), and those studying in private schools
but who have obtained admission outside 12(1)(c). While
these data provide a glimpse of the experiences of parents
in navigating the policy process, there are important caveats
in generalizing from it. As described below, the data were
collected as part of an action research study that was trying
to provide information and support to potentially eligible
households. erefore, the data can at best be considered
representative of what might be possible if the policy
was implemented along with sucient information and
communication eorts in the eld.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEYED
HOUSEHOLDS
e appallingly low application rates in Ahmedabad in the
rst two years (2013-2015) of implementation suggested
lack of awareness about the policy amongst households as
one of the important reasons. Hence, the Right to Education
Resource Centre, an action research project at IIM
Ahmedabad ran an awareness campaign during February
to March 2015 in more than 200 localities utilising a variety
of media. Anganwadi workers and eld volunteers were a
central gure in this awareness campaign. Data collection
was carried out during September to December 2016, with
the objective of going back to the households who were
contacted during the awareness campaign to obtain more
detailed information. e table below provides a snapshot of
the characteristics of these households25.
Table 6.1: Characteristics of surveyed households
and children
Characteristics of Households & Children Proportions/
Means
Sampled child is Male 51.52%
Currently studying in a school 98.33%
Mother Tongue:Gujarati 77.1%
Household Size 5.79
Caste/Religion
General 8.89%
Scheduled Tribe (ST) 6.76%
Other Backward Class (OBC) 32.22%
Scheduled Caste (SC) 36.18%
Muslim 12.67%
Christian/ Others 3.29%
Household has ush toilet 74.00%
House has Pucca walls 83.31%
Median monthly per capita Income 1666.67
Mother’s Education Level
None 17.3%
5th or below 16.69%
6th to 10th 54.46%
Above 10th 11.55%
Father’s Education Level
None 7.46%
5th or below 12.05%
6th to 10th 61.90%
Above 10th 18.59%
[25] e sample size reduces due to non-response in the case of a few variables
such as Monthly per capita Income (1634 households), Mother’s education
levels (1636 households), and Father’s Education levels (1635 households).
Subsequently a similar dierence is seen in these variables in the following
tables.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 43
Compared to the average household in the second round
of Indian Human Development Survey (IHDS) conducted
in 2011-1226 and the 71st round of National Sample Survey
(NSS) conducted in 201427 (nationally representative
datasets) our sample is relatively disadvantaged when
compared to such as . Our sample consists of a higher
share of SC, ST and Muslim households and consists of
economically less auent households indicated by a lower
percentage of pucca houses and lower monthly per capita
incomes compared to those in IHDS, and lower monthly
consumption expenditure compared to those in NSSO.
POLICY TAKE UP
Given that the surveyed households had been part of a
targeted information and awareness campaign on section
12(1)(c), our data reects fairly high awareness about 12(1)
(c), at 81% (see Table 6.2). Among those who were aware,
over 91 percent had applied. Among those who applied,
the percentage of those who were allotted a school drops
to nearly 54 percent. Since available seats did not exceed
number of seats allotted in 2015-1628, a high rate of non-
allotment probably suggest the hurdles in successfully
negotiating the procedural requirements of the application
process. Finally, of those allotted a school, 25% did not take
admission.
Table 6.2: Policy take up
Percentage who were aware about 12
(1) (c)
81.06%
1331 of 1642
Percentage of those who applied of
those who were aware
92.19%
1227 of 1331
Percentage of those allotted a school
of those who applied
53.95%
662 of 1227
Percentage of those admitted of those
allotted
74.92%
496 of 662
Based on our eld experiences the most common reasons
for not taking admission in an allotted school were
1. e school allotted was too far away from the applicant’s
home, and
[26] e second round of Indian Human Development Survey was conducted by
National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) and University
of Maryland. For further details:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/DSDR/studies/36151
[27] e 71st round of National Sample Survey was conducted by the National
Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statistics & Programme
Implementation. For further details: http://mail.mospi.gov.in/index.php/
catalog/161
[28] e number of seats allotted were 3712 out of 4950 seats available for
admission. is information was obtained from the oce of the District
Education Ocer (DEO) of Ahmedabad through a request made under the
Right to Information Act 2005.
[29] See Chapter 5 and 8 for more details.
[30] An example: “3 Ahmedabad schools refused RTE admissions, parents
complain”, 17 May 2017, Times of India; available at:
http://timesondia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/3-city-schools-
refused-rte-admissions-parents-complain/articleshow/58706420.cms
2. ey had applied to the same school where the child
was already studying in academic year 2014-15 but were
not allotted that school, and did not want to switch the
child’s school.
APPLICATION AND ADMISSION PROCESS IN
AHMEDABAD 201516
An applicant needs to go through three stages to avail
the benets under Section 12 (1) (c): (a) application, (b)
allotment of a seat in a school, and (c) taking admission in
the allotted school.
Application and admission process in the 2015-16 cycle
involved applicants lling paper forms with details about
their annual earnings, caste category, the child’s age, any
other kind of disadvantage that the child might face (such
as disability), and nally the schools they wished to apply
to. is along with proof of their disadvantage in the form
of government documents (birth certicate of the child,
residence proof of the family/ guardian, income proof, and
caste certicates), were to be submitted for their application
to be considered.
Incomplete forms or forms lled incorrectly, or those
where eligibility criteria were not met were rejected before
the allotment process began, aer which applicants were
allotted seats based on a lottery logic29. In most cases,
applicants were allotted schools from those selected by
them But there were instances of receiving an allotment to
a school which had not been mentioned in the application.
Applicants were to be notied about the allotment of a seat
via SMS and a letter by post. But many applicants who were
not allotted seats were not notied of their rejection.
Receiving allotment of a seat in a school through the policy
does not translate to automatic admission in that school.
Applicants are required to present proof of their allotment
along with the eligibility documents at the school. ere
have been many instances where schools have refused
admission to the applicant despite allotment30.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS ACROSS THE
THREE STAGES OF THE POLICY
In the tables below, we compare the surveyed households
across three stages: application, allotment and admission
on the basis of characteristics that are likely to inuence a
household’s decision to participate and successfully navigate
the application process
Comparing households who applied and who did not:
Reected by relatively higher share of households having a
private ush toilet and pucca walls, we nd that households
that applied are more auent compared to those who did
not apply,. Further these households have, relatively higher
share of households where- Gujarati (the local language)
was their mother tongue, mother of the child having a
mobile phones, and at least one of the household members
being personally acquainted with school teachers/ sta and/
or lawyers. We also nd that fewer Scheduled Tribe (ST)
households and more Scheduled Caste (SC) households
applied under the policy.
Comparing households who were allotted a school, to
those who applied but were not allotted a school:
Of those who were allotted a school compared to those who
were not, relatively more children were from households
belonging to SC, OBC and ST caste categories. is
probably reects the lottery logic employed by the state,
where historically disadvantaged social groups are given
priority in allotment. In addition, importance of Gujarati
as mother tongue, the mother of the child owning a
mobile phone, personal acquaintance with school sta and
economic auence seem to matter more when it comes to
allotment.
Comparing households who admitted the child to those
who did not:
Children who took admission in a school through the
provision belonged to households that were relatively worse
o, as measured by having a private ush toilet. is is in
comparison to those who were allotted a school but did not
take admission. e households do not appear to dier on
other parameters.
Table 6.3: From Application to Admission:
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households in
Our Sample Across Stages of the Implementation
Cycle
Overall Applied Allotted Admitted
(%)
Gender of child
is Male
51.52 51.75 53.02 53.02
Mother Tongue-
Gujarati
77.1 78.97 84.29 84.48
Household Size 5.79 5.77 5.79 5.82
Caste/Religion
General 8.89 8.88 8.16 8.27
ST 6.76 6.11 7.55 8.27
OBC 32.22 31.7 29.46 29.23
SC 36.18 39.28 44.71 43.95
Muslim 12.67 11.41 8.76 8.87
Christian/
Others
3.29 2.61 1.36 1.41
Household has
ush toilet
74 75.06 77.95 76.01
Household has
pucca wall
83.31 85.25 87.92 88.31
Median monthly
per capita
Income (in Rs.)
1666.67 1700 1750 1666.67
Mother owns a
Mobile phone
49.57 51.52 56.08 55.49
Social
Connections
Member of
the household
knows:
School Ocial/
Teacher/
Principal
36.66 38.39 44.56 42.94
Local Politician/
MLA
28.56 29.99 32.63 33.06
Police ocial 21.38 22.09 22.51 21.37
Lawyer 22.72 24.21 26.28 25.2
Sample Size 1642 1227 662 496
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 45
Table 4 (below) presents education levels of both parents
of the child. In line with previous results, more educated
parents (especially educated mothers) are more likely to
apply and also more likely to receive an allotment.
Table 6.4: From Application to Admission: Parental
Education Characteristics of Households in Our
Sample across Stages of the Implementation Cycle
Overall Applied Allotted Admitted
Mother's
Education
Level (%)
None 17.3 15.54 12.14 12.17
5th or
below
16.69 15.29 12.44 12.58
6th to 10th 54.46 56.26 62.22 62.07
Above
10th
11.55 12.92 13.2 13.18
Sample
Size
1636 1223 659 493
Father's
Education
Level (%)
None 7.46 6.54 5.3 5.86
5th or
below
12.05 10.63 7.87 7.47
6th to 10th 61.9 63.37 65.51 65.05
Above
10th
18.59 19.46 21.33 21.62
Sample
Size
1635 1223 661 495
us, a combination of auence, education, social networks
do seem to make a dierence to whether a household
applies and receives an allotment. is potentially indicates
information complexity (about guidelines, eligibility, and
application processes of policies), as well as direct and
indirect costs incurred during the process of availing
benets of a scheme.
ACCESS AND EASE OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS
In Table 5 and Table 6 we present data on the experiences of
the households in our sample that applied.
Majority of applicants were able to collect forms from
visiting centres that were at walking distance and did not
make more than one visit to collect the forms. is implies
that application forms for the process were relatively easily
accessible to most and could have been inuenced by the
information and communication eorts. More than a
third of the households reported that they did not visit
help centres at all, but were helped by others (student
volunteers, voluntary organisations, anganwadi workers,
etc.) who brought the form to them. In the next section we
discuss dierent third parties who helped applicants during
dierent parts of the application process.
Table 6.5: Travel Time to Collection Centres to
collect application forms (%)
Did not visit (form was brought to them) 34.2
Walking distance (Within 15 minutes) 42.54
15-30 minutes of travel time 14.91
Over 30 minutes of travel time 5.23
Don’t remember 3.12
Sample Size 1187
Had to make multiple visits to collect the form
(of those who visited the help centre) (%)
Yes, had to make multiple visits 12.29
Sample Size 781
TRANSACTION COSTS OF THE APPLICATION AND
ADMISSION PROCESS
Relatively more households spent money on travel to
and from the collection centres than on procurement of
application forms and on agents or helpers. e amount of
money spent on travel was not signicantly large for most
households31.
Table 6.6: Costs incurred during application
process
Spent money on the following during the application process (%)
Procuring Application Form 2.23
Agent/ Helper 0.42
Tra v e l 21.32
Sample Size 1187
DOCUMENTS PROCURED DURING THE
APPLICATION PROCESS
It was compulsory for all applicants to submit proof of
residence and age. In addition, applicants belonging to
SC, ST, or OBC categories were required to produce caste
certicates, and all applicants without Below Poverty Line
(BPL) cards were required to submit income certicates.
Of those who applied, more than half had to procure
income certicates specically for the purpose of application
(table 7). Given the nite validity of an income certicate,
many applicants have to get fresh certicates made every
year to apply under government policies. Fewer applicants
needed to procure birth certicates, residence proof and to
some extent caste certicates. Based on our eld experiences
and data, most households already had these documents to
avail other benets from the government.
[31] e median amount spent on travel was Rs.50 for those who incurred
expenditure during the application process
Table 8 gives an insight into costs and burdens for procuring
caste and income certicate/BPL card in our sample.
Many households had to make multiple visits to obtain
these documents and additionally a large number of them
incurred expenditure in this process.
Table 6.7: Procurement of Documents
Got document made specically for application (%)
(Out of those who submitted the document for application)
Residence Proof 6.93
Sample Size 967
Birth Certicate 2.94
Sample Size 1093
Income Certicate/ BPL 51.42
Sample Size 737
Caste Certicate (if applicable) 13.79
Sample Size 631
Table 6.8: Cost of Procuring Caste Certificate and
Income Certificate/BPL Card
Spent money on procurement of documents (%) (of those who
got documents made)
Income Certicate/ BPL 88.39
Sample Size 379
Caste Certicate 81.61
Sample Size 87
Households made more than two visits to procure document (%)
Income Certicate/ BPL 30.08
Caste Certicate 20.69
Median Amount spent (of those who spent money)
Income Certicate/ BPL Rs. 200
Caste Certicate Rs. 200
HELP RECEIVED BY APPLICANTS FROM VARIOUS
SOURCES
Applicants primarily received help from anganwadi workers
(45.8%), and from their friends, family and neighbours
(17.52%). Most sought assistance for collection and lling
of forms. Almost half of those who sought help were
given information about schools to apply to, and 41.4%
applicants were given advice on which schools to apply to.
In approximately 24.0% cases, the person providing help
decided which schools the applicants should apply to. In our
experience applicants usually know only a limited number
of schools within walking distance of their house and a few
others in their locality/neighborhood. eir perceptions of
the schools are based on their social network and very few
have visited these schools themselves or interacted with
other parents or teachers to assess their quality. Ensuring
that parents have easy access to meaningful information
about many schools will go a long way in helping parents
make a better schooling choice for their child.
Table 6.9: Individuals who helped applicants
during the application process and dierent
stages at which applicants sought help
Who all helped during the application process? (%) (multiple
choice question)
Friends/ Family/ Neighbours 17.52
Employer/Oce Colleague 0.42
NGO/ Community workers 2.53
Anganwadi worker32 45.83
Local Politician 2.86
Agents 0.84
Education Ocers 3.79
School 1.77
Government help centre 0.51
College students 5.31
Sample Size 1187
What help did they provide? (multiple choice
question)
Helped in collecting form 77.85
Filled based on what you told 69.72
Helped you with what to write where 59.90
Gave you information about schools 51.64
Advised about which school to apply 41.42
Decided about which school to apply 23.98
Sample Size 763
Table 10 shows that only 42% applicants received
acknowledgement slips aer submitting their application
forms at help centres instead of all. Receipts signal
transparency of the system, and act as proof for applicants
to make formal complaints if issues arise at a later time.
Further, only 63% of the applicants were informed about
the result of allotment. We realized during our eld work
that many of those whose forms were rejected prior to the
allotment process or who were not allotted seats thereaer
were not sent an SMS or any notication via post. It is
possible that many of the 36.6% who were not informed of
their result largely fell within this category.
[32] is number is signicantly higher than other categories due to our
awareness campaign (as discussed above).
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 47
Table 6.10: Responsiveness of the authorities
Received an acknowledgement slip having the form number
aer the application was accepted (%)
Yes 42.04
No 46.25
Don’t remember 11.71
How many were informed of the result? (%)
Were informed 63.44
Sample Size 1187
HURDLES DURING ADMISSION & TRANSPARENCY
OF THE PROCESS
Once an applicant was allotted a seat, admission had to be
secured from the schools itself. Mandated by law, schools
cannot refuse any applicant if they had sucient proof
of their allotment and relevant supporting documents.
Additionally, based on the guidelines for the provision,
schools are not allowed to conduct any test, either of the
child or the parent prior to admission in the school, and
cannot refuse a child admission on the basis of any test
conducted. But our data shows that of the parents that took
admission, 10.7% claimed that their child was made to take
a written test, and 2.6% claimed that they were made to
take a written test at the time of admission. An even higher
proportion, 11.8% households reported parents being
interviewed and one-hs of the households reported child
being interviewed. Further, 11.6% of the respondents said
they were asked for a deposit/donation amount during the
admission process. Only 54.4% of those admitted were given
an admission conrmation receipt by the school.
Table 6.11: Admission Experiences of those were
admitted in allotted schools
School conducted interview/ written tests for parent and child
(%)
Written test for parents 2.55
Written test for child 10.65
Interview for parents 11.81
Interview for child 20.6
Paid any money donation/deposit to the school during
admission (%)
Yes 11.57
Were given an admission conrmation receipt (%)
Yes 54.4
Sample Size 432
e questions listed in Tables 12 and 13 were asked to
all households who were part of the application and/ or
admission process.
Of those who applied, 14.5% of the households claimed
they faced issues during various stages of the process. e
common grievances of applicants were: schools being
allotted further away from their house than the policy
guaranteed, not getting a school of their choice, and the
allotted school refusing to admit the child or charging
additional fees that the parents did not wish to pay or
could not aord. Only about a h of those facing an issue
reported it to a concerned authority, of which action was
only taken in 36.8% of such cases.
Table 6.12: Grievance redressal at Application,
Allotment or Admission stage
Grievance Redressal (%)
Faced problems from application to admission
or even aer admission
14.49
Sample Size 1187
Reported the grievance to any authority 22.09
Sample Size 172
Authority took some action 36.84
Sample Size 38
Were satised by the action taken 78.57
Sample Size 14
Overall, the ndings from this study suggest that most
applicants found the process to be easy and honest. Our
eld experiences tell us that while many applicants faced
problems during the process, such a high number of
households nding the process honest and easy could be
possibly attributed to assistance received from local NGOs,
anganwadi workers, student volunteers and others.
Table 6.13: Opinion about the process
Applicants who believed the following of the application process
(%):
Process of application was honest (%) 85.93
Process of application was easy (%) 84.16
Sample Size 1187
RETENTION OF CHILDREN IN 12 1 C SCHOOLS
e table below presents schooling status of children who
had received admission through section 12(1)(c), at the time
of survey (September to November 2016). Of those who
were admitted in a school through 12 (1) (c), 17 children
(3.4%) le their respective schools. 12 of those who le their
schools shied to a dierent private school, four shied
to a government school while one child is currently not
attending any school (has dropped-out). Of those who le
their respective schools, there were at least 2 respondents
who explicitly pointed to mistreatment of the child at the
school as the reason for leaving that school.
Table 6.14: Retention of children in schools
through Section 12 (1)(c) and percentage of
dropouts from schools admitted through 12 (1)(c)
Continuing in school admitted to under policy 96.57%
Shied to dierent private school 2.42%
Shied to a govt. school 0.81%
Currently not in any school 0.2%
No. of children admitted through policy 496
SCHOOLING EXPERIENCES
While enrollments through section 12(1)(c) is an important
measure of implementation, the evidence on achieving
inclusion and quality education in schools leaves much to
be desired. We now discuss results from our attempts to ll
this gap.
Table 15 presents the proportion of children studying in
government and private schools in our sample. Students
have accessed private schools both through 12 (1)(c) and
independent o i Almost 73% of our sample was attending
a private school, and 44% were attending it even without
12(1)(c). Only one-fourth of the sampled children were in
government schools on the date of survey.
Table 6.15: Management type of Schools children
were studying in as of September to December
2016
School Management (%)
Government 25.27
Private without 12(1)(c) 43.79
Private through 12(1)(c) 29.17
Dropped out 1.77
Sample Size 1642
Table 16 includes the parents responses to questions asked
about their child’s experiences in school- what he/she likes
the most and the least about school. Responses of those
studying in schools through Section 12 (1) (c) are compared
to responses of those attending government schools and
private schools without 12 (1) (c).
Relatively more parents with children studying in schools
through 12 (1) (c), compared to those whose children study
in government schools or private schools without 12 (1) (c),
claimed that the thing their child like the most about school
were “good teachers”, and the playground or eld. More
parents with children studying in a private schools without
12(1) (c), compared to those studying in private schools
through 12(1)(c), claimed that the thing their child like
most about school was ‘learning’.
Relatively fewer parents with children in 12 (1) (c) schools
compared to those in government schools reported that
what their child liked least about school was being beaten by
teachers.
Finally, many more parents with children studying in 12
(1) (c) schools claimed that the fact that the school was far
from home is what their child like least about school. is is
corroborated by responses from applicants who claimed that
one of the primary grievances they faced was being allotted
a school far from their home.
Table 6.16: Child likes most and least about school
Child likes most about school (%)
Overall Government Private
without
12(1)(c)
Private
through
12(1)(c)
Friends 7.44 7.71 7.09 7.72
Learning 54.68 55.18 58.55 48.43
Playground/
gardens/eld
25.91 26.51 23.92 28.39
Good teachers 6.01 5.3 4.87 8.35
Good school
complex
0.81 0.24 0.97 1.04
Nothing 1.18 1.93 0.7 1.25
Others/ Don’t
know
3.97 3.13 3.89 4.8
Sample Size 1613 415 719 479
Child likes least about school (%)
Overall Government Private
without
12(1)(c)
Private
through
12(1)(c)
Teachers
beating
6.14 7.23 5.98 5.43
Pupils beating 3.41 3.37 3.48 3.34
Being bored 4.77 3.86 5.42 4.59
Having to
work hard
3.10 3.61 2.36 3.76
Too far from
home
1.92 2.17 0.83 3.34
Dirty toilets 1.61 1.2 1.95 1.46
No safe
drinking water
0.50 0.72 0.7 0
No
playground
1.43 0 1.95 1.88
Poor teaching 1.98 2.17 1.81 2.09
No good
school
building
0.50 0.24 0.42 0.84
Nothing 63.05 65.3 62.45 62
Others/Don’t
know
11.59 10.12 12.66 11.27
Sample Size 1613 415 719 479
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 49
Extracurricular activities in school form a crucial aspect
of a child’s schooling experience. Table 17 captures the
percentage of schools oering such activities as reported by
parents of children studying in these schools, as well as the
percentage of children participating in these activities (in
schools that oer them).
More parents of children studying in schools through 12
(1) (c) reported these schools as organising extracurricular
activities such as sports activities, cultural activities, and
picnics compared to both, government and private schools
without 12 (1) (c). However fewer children in schools
through the provision participated in any of these activities
compared to those studying in private schools without the
provision. is possibly suggests some barriers which might
prevent them from participating. It’s a cause of concern and
merits further exploration.
Table 6.17: Sports, cultural and picnic activities in
schools
School organises activities (%)
Overall Government Private
without
12(1)(c)
Private
through
12(1)(c)
Sports
Activity
67.95 61.45 67.32 74.53
Cultural 59.14 50.12 57.44 69.52
Picnic 43.52 31.57 46.04 50.10
Sample Size 1613 415 719 479
Child participation in activities (%)
Sports
Activity
60.49 53.33 65.91 58.26
Sample Size 1096 255 484 357
Cultural 54.30 47.6 57.63 54.35
Sample Size 954 208 413 333
Picnic 36.47 32.83 38.97 35
Sample Size 703 131 331 240
What about parental involvement in schooling of their
child? In Table 18 we capture interaction between school
and parents - how comfortable parents are in approaching
teachers, and participation in parent-teacher meetings,
as well as whether the school sends notices to parents
regarding the child or activities in school. As was shown in
Table 5, not all parents in the sample are educated and some
are not literate. We thus, also asked parents if they were able
to understand notices sent by the school.
While relatively more parents reported receiving notices
from schools where their child was admitted through 12(1)
(c) compared to both, government and private schooling
without the provision, relatively fewer reported feeling
comfortable in approaching the teachers to discuss child-
related issues. In schools where parent- teacher meetings
were held more parents of children studying in schools
through 12 (1) (c) reported attended these meetings,
compared to parents of those studying in government
schools.
Table 6.18: Parents experience at school: Parent
Teacher Meetings, Receiving notices and
Approaching Teachers
Parents’ Schooling Experience (%)
Overall Government Private
without
12(1)
(c)
Private
through
12(1)(c)
Parent is
comfortable in
approaching the
teacher to discuss
child- related
issues
78.05 75.66 80.39 76.62
Receive notices
from school
regarding
academic
progress/ events
48.92 24.34 55.35 60.54
Sample Size 1613 415 719 479
If they do
receive notices,
are they able to
understand the
notices
96.70 95.05 97.49 96.21
Sample Size 789 101 398 290
Parent- Teacher
meetings are held
in school
59.33 62.42 57.44 59.50
Sample Size 1613 415 719 479
If PTMs are
held, did parent/
member of
household
attend most PTA
meetings
79.00 73.75 80.15 82.11
Did parent nd
out about a
parent- teacher
meeting they
were not invited
to
2.61 4.25 1.69 2.46
Sample Size 957 259 413 285
CONCLUSION
Section 12(1) (c) is a key provision of the RTE and yet
systematic evidence on its implementation is scarce. is
study is an attempt to ll that gap.
We nd 92% of those who had information about the
policy applied. is indicates that creating awareness
about the policy is important in increasing the number of
applicants. Our ndings suggest that relatively advantaged
households have a higher probability to both applying
and being and allotted a seat via the mandate. Despite
being “free” applicants report to incurring nancial
costs during the application process- while procuring
application forms, while procuring documents, or while
travelling to collect and submit their forms. ese costs
of transaction might also prevent some from applying.
is indicates that there are potential barriers- direct or
indirect costs, and information complexity- which prevents
the more disadvantaged households from applying and
receiving allotments. If true, simply providing people with
information about the policy may not be sucient but
rather more detailed, specic information pertaining to the
application process, simplication of this process, and more
hands-on assistance would be required during the process
to increase the number of applicants who are ultimately
allotted seats. ese potential barriers should be addressed
in the new online application process.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 51
CHAPTER 7:
ACCOUNTS OF ONLINE IMPLEMENTATION:
RAIPUR AND LUCKNOW
Raunaq Pradhan, Varun Rangarajan
Indus Action
is chapter describes the maiden attempts of implementing
RTE 12(1)(c) applications and admissions through online
portals in Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Lucknow (Uttar
Pradesh). e description is based on the Indus Action’s
eld-work in these cities.
INTRODUCTION
Indus Action, a not-for-prot organization was founded
in year 2013 in New Delhi with a mission ‘to facilitate
enrollment campaigns that empower choice for inclusion
seats and school education programs that mobilize
community ownership’. Currently, Indus Action is working
in six cities viz. Delhi, Raipur, Bangalore, Lucknow, Pune,
and Chennai. We work in the areas of online MIS system
development, increasing awareness among eligible families,
helping parents ll applications, performing online lottery,
building tracking modules for children admitted under
RTE 12(1)(c), and helping build capacity for government
ocials. In this chapter, we report on the implementation
process followed in the cities of Raipur and Lucknow, our
experiences and perceptions from working in them.
e RTE 12(1)(c) admission cycle follows four stages in
general: identication of school vacancies, applications from
candidates, match of eligible applications with vacancies
through a fair and unbiased process (lottery), and nally,
admission into the school. We revisit various aspects of
these stages as observed in the two capital cities.
RAIPUR
e online application system has been initiated for the
academic year 2017-18. is is a pilot implementation
restricted to Raipur district, and is expected to inform the
decisions on digitisation of RTE 12(1)(c) admissions across
the State of Chhattisgarh.
Administration
e regulation and control of oine admissions until
academic year (AY) 2016-17 lay with ‘nodal school
principals’ (NSP) in the district. e NSPs are Principals
posted in designated government higher secondary schools,
who are assigned the additional duty of administering 12(1)
(c) admissions in unaided schools in their vicinity. With
digitisation, the procedures have been shied online to
a centralised system. Nonetheless, the NSPs still work as
the local authority and primary contact for coordination
of online application and admission process. e District
Administration (administered by District Magistrate and
routed through District Education Oce) is responsible for
the design and implementation of the online portal, which
had been facilitated by representatives of Indus Action in
Raipur for AY 2017-18.
Identication of vacancies
Every unaided school is required to submit a school
information sheet to the local NSP. is sheet primarily
includes number of 12(1)(c) vacancies, and details
about the school’s neighbourhood. By dening locality,
sublocality, and sub-sublocality, the school denes its own
neighbourhood from the nearest to the farthest area within
1km. e NSP is supposed to verify this information, for
uploading it to the online database.
Table 7.1: Neighbourhood data submitted by
school (Raipur)
Locality Sub-locality Sub-Sub-locality
Urban Ward Number Ward Name Area/ Mohalla Name
Rural Gram
Panchayat
Revenue
Village
Area/Mohalla Name
Application
For the 2017-18 admissions, the District Administration
publicized the details of online applications through
its website, newspaper advertisements, and pamphlets
made available at NSP oces. e information was made
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 53
public about twenty days prior to the start-date of online
applications. Additionally, a telephonic helpline was opened
to address applicant queries. Despite these eorts, it was
found that many parents were unaware of the application
dates, and could not obtain the necessary information, when
they visited nearby unaided schools.
Till 2016-17, parents could approach the local NSP, and
submit their application for unaided schools oine. ey
were required to submit a separate form for each school. For
2017-18, the application could be submitted only through
online mode using a single form for multiple schools. In
this form, they could submit at least one and maximum
ve preferences based on their priority for schools within
their locality, sub-locality, and sub-sub-locality. e online
application window was open between 20 February and
10 March, 2017. Many parents expressed the need to
extend this period. Nevertheless, there was an increase
in the number of registered vacancies and corresponding
applications, as shown in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Applications under RTE 12(1)(c) in
Raipur
AY 2016-17
(Oine)
AY 2017-18
(Online)
Vacancies 5500 9566
Schools 780 822
Applications received 3600 8959
e rise in the number of vacancies and applications can
also be attributed to a change in the entry-level. In 2016-17,
the entry-level for admissions under RTE 12(1)(c) was grade
1 and pre-primary (nursery) classes. In 2017-18, it was
expanded to all fresh admissions at nursery, kindergarten 1,
kindergarten 2, and grade 1 classes. e eligible categories
included people from disadvantaged categories (SC/ ST
irrespective of income limit, and other categories) or low
income backgrounds with annual income less than 1 lakh
rupees. e age criteria were dened as follows: Nursery
(2.5-3.5 years); kindergarten 1 (3.5-4.5 years), kindergarten
2 (4.5-5.5 years) and grade 1 (5.5-6 years). is age was
determined as of 31 January, 2017.
For submitting the online application, parents could
approach a local application centre. ere are approximately
150 government high schools with functional ICT programs
in Raipur district. Out of them, 82 schools were assigned
the duty of accepting online applications. Parents could
visit these schools and submit the form. Alternatively, they
could visit application centres run by Indus Action, a cyber
café or, submit the form on their own. e onus of entering
correct details for the necessary documents lied with the
operators or parents lling up the application form. Aer
successfully submitting the application, the centre could
provide a receipt mentioning name, registered mobile
number (essential for making an application), application
ID, and password. is receipt could be used to track the
application further.
Allotment
Eligible applications could be matched with corresponding
vacancies using the lottery algorithm as follows:
1. All applications and vacancies corresponding to nursery
class are selected.
2. e list of schools and applications is randomly sorted.
3. e rst school is selected in the randomly sorted list
4. Every application to the school is scanned, and allotted
against vacancy, if the school is indicated as its rst
preference. In the randomly sorted list of applications,
this allotment is on a rst-come-rst-serve basis.
5. Step 3 and 4 are repeated for all the schools in the list
(obtained in step 2).
6. Step 3 and 4 are repeated for all the schools in the list
(obtained in step 2), wherein the school is indicated as
second/ third/ latter preference.
7. Step 1 to 6 are repeated for kindergarten 1, kindergarten
2, and grade 1 classes, until no preference is le
unattended.
Admission
Post lottery, an SMS is sent to the registered mobile number
with details of the allotted school. When there is no
allotment, the SMS states the same. A printout of the list of
students selected school-wise is sent to the unaided schools,
and their corresponding NSP.
e applicants are required to report to the allotted schools
within a stipulated period of seven days. ey must submit
original certicates for admission, including birth certicate
of child, identity proof of parents/ guardians, address proof,
and income proof (BPL Card or Income Certicate issued
by Tehsildar) /caste proof (SC/ST certicates issued by
Tehsildar) for parents/ guardians. e validity of documents
is veried by school authorities.
Challenges in Raipur:
1. Many applications had to be deleted, and relled again,
since the internet cafes provided wrong information
while lling up the forms.
2. It was found that cafe operators, school administrators,
and government ocials needed training and
orientation for using computer-based portals.
3. ere was no clear information regarding localities for
mapping of schools.
4. Enrollment conrmation was not provided by schools
on time leading to duplication in lottery results in
subsequent rounds.
5. Short timelines for implementation resulted in a more
reghting approach rather than a structured system for
the pilot implementation.
6. Short timelines also aected the overall number of
applications for the admission cycle.
Areas of Development
1. “Income Targeting needs to be improved as current
process for procuring certicates has high potential for
leakage.” - Parent
2. “GPS Mapping for school locations could have
potentially reduced the errors in school mapping.”-
Parent
3. “e timeline for accepting applications should have
been more. We were not aware regarding the exact dates,
since the school did not tell us about it” - Parent
4. “e IT operator at the government high school, did
not tell us about the availability of schools in nearby
areas, and allotted us a school far away from our
neighbourhood.” - Parent
LUCKNOW
ere are approximately six lakh vacancies for admissions
under RTE 12(1)(c) in unaided schools in Uttar Pradesh. In
the last two years, approximately twenty-thousand vacancies
were lled. For 2017-18, the Government of Uttar Pradesh
digitised the application process by collaborating with
various NGOs such as Bharat Abhyudaya Foundation, Indus
Action, and the State Collective for Right to Education.
Administration
e Department of Education, Government of Uttar
Pradesh circulated the RTE rules documentation - including
the rules of online portal - to all the district BSA (Basic
Shiksha Adhikari) oces. It included details such as
responsibilities of dierent ocials, rules, and criteria of
admission. e BSAs were trained on various aspects of the
implementation procedure by the government, which was
attended by about 28 BSAs. e BSA served as local contact
for RTE 12(1)(c) admissions in their neighbourhood. e
NIC (National Informatics Centre) was responsible for
building up the online portal with data obtained from DISE.
Identication of Vacancies
e following are key rules and procedures mentioned
by the Uttar Pradesh government for admissions, and for
identifying the schools under which students can apply:
DISE data will be used for school related data.
e SSA will provide funds to support RTE section 12(1)
(c).
e BSA will take care of information related to schools
and its correction.
Neighborhood is dened as all area within a 1km radius
(using GPS).
Extracting data from DISE, about 80,000 schools
were added to the newly developed online portal. e
responsibility for correcting this data lay with the BSA
ocers.
Application
e information related to RTE 12(1)(c) application process
including the eligibility criteria and form submission
dates was disseminated through pamphlets, posters,
advertisements in local newspapers, radio, and involvement
of some Anganwadi, Lokwani, and Community health
centres. It was publicised een days prior to the ocial
start date of the online portal. Volunteers and district
representatives were hired by the NGOs and trained for
increasing awareness related to the online portal and the
RTE Act amongst the parents.
Table 7.3: Entry-age for admission in Uttar Pradesh
Date as of Age of child Admitting grade
1 April, 2017 < 6 years Pre-primary
1 April, 2017 > 6 years but < 7 years 1st grade
Table 7.4: Application Timelines and Lottery
rounds in Uttar Pradesh
Phase Submission
date
Lottery date School
Admission
date
1st Phase 25 Feb to 15
Mar
25 March Till 1 April
2nd Phase 16 Mar to 15
Apr
25 April Till 1 May
3rd Phase 16 Apr to 10
May
15 May Till 18 May
4th Phase* 11 May to 15
Jun
25 June Till 1 July
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 55
e application process followed the timeline shown in
Table 4. In this process,
Parents had the option to ll forms manually and submit
them to the BSA oce. It was the responsibility of the
BSA to upload them online.
To avoid duplication in applications, NIC developed a
unique id for each child, based on child’s father name,
date of birth, and mobile number. In case of duplication,
the online portal selected the latest application.
In case of non-allotment during the rst lottery phase, a
fresh application could be submitted for second lottery
following the same process.
Allotment and Admission
For the year 2017-18, 30,754 allotments were made. e
results of online lottery were released on the website, and
on various district BSA oces. Parents could visit the BSA
oces, where BSAs issued a letter of allotment. Children
were oered admission into the respective schools aer
giving allotment letter to the schools. However, some
schools continued denying the admission to eligible
children under RTE 12(1)(c).
Aer providing admission to the lottery winners, the school
was required to enter the name of child on the online portal
under its login. If the school rejected the admission for any
reason, then the same had to be mentioned on the portal.
e process began with parents approaching the schools for
admission, when this report was documented.
e following were the criteria for the admission process:
Age of child as of 1 of April, 2017 should be between 3
and 7 years (Table 7.3).
Beneciaries: SC/ST, Disabled, Widow living on pension
(if not receiving pension, then she has to submit an
income certicate), orphan child, or BPL (dened in
UP for annual income less than Rs 1,00,000 and other
conditions).
Selection of school should be in the radius of 1km
Required documents –
Unaordable Group(Alabhit
Samooh)- SC/ST/Disabled/
Widow Pension/Orphan/
vulnerable child
EWS- Annual Income less than
1 lakh or BPL card or Name in
BPL list
Address proof(Any One)-
Adhar card, voter card, Ration
Card, Driving license, Bank
Passbook
Address proof(Any One)-
Adhar card, voter card, Ration
Card, Driving license, Bank
Passbook
Caste Certicate/ Pension
Passbook/Disability Certicate
Annual Income Certicate or
BPL Card
Child Birth Certicate Child Birth Certicate
Parents were required to submit their certicates online
(by scanning), or manually submit the copies at the BSA
oce. e documents submitted at the BSA Oce were
scanned and uploaded to the application.
Learnings/ problems faced
Challenges in Lucknow:
Migrant workers don’t have proof of address of their
current residence and hence their children are not
eligible to apply for seats
Online portal is supported only by Firefox and Chrome
browsers.
Parents from rural areas are unable to locate their
neighborhood schools in the portal. Most of the schools
currently on the portal are Nagar Nigam schools. Even
manual form submissions are not helping in these cases,
as BSAs do not know how to enter the information
online without the schools being listed.
Last year, elite private schools resisted giving admission
to a lot of children. It is yet to be seen how things will
pan out this year.
Only the tuition fees will be borne by the government
and there is no clarity on the rest of the expenses like
uniforms, books etc.
Errors in DISE have led to missing information of some
schools. A feature in the portal meant to take in parent
submissions of missing schools, does not work as of now.
e introduction of MIS this year has meant that parents
have to be procient in using computer with internet.
is is leading them to seek help from outside like
internet cafes.
Some district BSA oces are not accepting oine forms,
and are instead asking parents to ll online. is is
possibly due to some miscommunication.
ere is no functional grievance system in place.
Issues to be Addressed for Better Implementation:
e admission system needs to be transparent- online as
well as accessible with records oine.
e information regarding admission procedure should
be easily accessible to parents. ere needs to be a
simplied checklist for documents.
e private schools need to receive full and timely
reimbursements.
Special admission preparedness drives need to be
conducted for parents before the admission cycle begins.
Proper capacity building activities need to be conducted
for all the government stakeholders related to
implementation of RTE.
ere is a need for an alternative platform like mobile
friendly app to make lling of application easy.
A functional grievance system is required, which will
support parents throughout the application process.
CONCLUSION:
Online platforms to admit students under the purview
of RTE Sec 12(1)(c) were implemented for the rst time
in Raipur, and Lucknow. is initiative was taken to help
inculcate more transparency in the system, and to reduce
the burden of all stakeholders in the system with the help
of a technology platform. Implementation was not smooth,
and a lot of challenges were faced across various domains
during this process. However, the general consensus seems
to be that a step in the right direction has been taken.. We
also hope that with feedback from all stakeholders aer the
pilot implementation , the process shall be smoother with
incorporation of more eciency and transparency in the
process.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 57
CHAPTER 8:
LOTTERY LOGIC IN THE FOUR STATES
Shrikant Wad, Ambrish Dongre, Ankur Sarin
In this chapter, we discuss systems and processes used for
allocating eligible children to unaided schools under RTE
Section 12(1)(c). In particular, we describe and study in
detail, the allocation process in four States: Maharashtra,
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. We discuss the
implications of these systems on the implementation of the
mandate, and suggest how these can be improved.
INTRODUCTION
Despite clearing all the application hurdles, it is possible
that a child is not admitted to the desired unaided school
through RTE 12(1)(c) provisions. is uncertainty is led
by limited availability of seats per school compared to the
number of applicants. Oen, certain preferred schools
attract more applicants than others. Alternatively, there
are some schools which receive lesser or no interest from
the prospective students. As the admissions are typically
run centrally, the relevant education departments face a
challenge of maintaining fairness throughout the process.
To resolve the puzzle of matching high number of applicants
against limited number of seats in unaided schools, several
states rely on computerised randomisation techniques, an
“RTE lottery”.
e “lottery” - a computerised programme typically run for
a few hours on a network server, carries high administrative
and political signicance33. Not only is the lottery process
crucial for deciding the allotments, they are also important
symbols of fairness and transparency. Recognizing their
importance, in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, ocials
at the level of secretary or minister are oen invited for
the inauguration of lottery. In Maharashtra, the lottery is
ocially initiated at a well-known school or auditorium. It
is attended by high-level government ocials, and involves
participation of parents in the process. In all the four
States, lottery dates are publicly announced, the results are
announced in the presence of high level ocials, with the
process attracting high media attention.
Underlying these highly signicant events are the
algorithms, which allot schools to the eligible children.
rough subsequent sections, we try explaining their logical
ow as followed in four States: Maharashtra, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan; the design principles, and
various techniques used in these States. All the selected
States have had at least a year’s experience of implementing
RTE 12(1)(c) online, cover large geographical regions
with rural as well as urban habitation, and have reported
substantial number of enrolments in the past years34. ey
rely on a team of in-house programmers or NIC (National
Informatics Centre) division for designing and running
their online admission systems.
DATA COLLECTION
e information presented in this chapter is based on
structured interviews of selected government ocials from
the four States. e programmers of the online portal and
respective coordinators at the Department of Education/
National Informatics Centre oces in Mumbai, Pune,
Bhopal, Jaipur, and Bangalore have been interviewed in
November 2016 for the same.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATION SYSTEM
Discussions with those involved in the design of the
allocation process suggest that all systems have the following
principles underlying their design.
1. Every vacancy in schools registered for RTE 12(1)(c)
admissions should be considered for seat allotment.
2. Every eligible application should be considered for the
seat allotment.
3. A successful application should have at least one seat
allotted.
[33] e online portals are being used in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,
Karnataka, Delhi, and Rajasthan. e other States including Chhattisgarh,
Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh have started adopting the online
systems partially or fully.
[34] See State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) report published in 2015 and
2016
4. e match between the school vacancy and applicant
should be ideally based on applicant’s indication of
preferences.
5. While deciding between two potential matches, higher
priority should be given to a match with a school
in candidate’s closest neighbourhood, subject to the
candidate’s eligibility category.
ese ve objectives can be considered as the foundation
of lottery logic in all the four systems discussed further.
e distinction amongst the specic designs is a function
of State-level RTE rules as well as the indigenous
randomisation techniques employed by the computer
programmers. We describe these next.
ALLOTMENT ALGORITHMS
Maharashtra
Amongst the four systems, Maharashtra oers arguably
the most complex and multi-stage algorithm. Maharashtra
is also the only one that has publicly declared the step-by-
step internal logic, and enabled people’s participation in
the randomisation procedure. e entire algorithm and
rules governing the same are disclosed on the RTE 12(1)(c)
admission website of Maharashtra State35.
e lottery is conducted at the district level, and students
can initially be allotted to multiple seats. e District
Education Ocer (DEO), in consultation with the State
RTE Coordinator in Pune, nalises a date for lottery. On
this day, departmental ocials, school representatives, and
applicants are invited to attend the lottery event in a public
place (an auditorium or a well-known school). e result
of the lottery is conveyed through the website; applicants
receive an SMS in English asking them to check the website
and print their allotment letter. e allocation procedure is
as follows.
Lottery procedure
1. e number of applications received by the most
preferred school is recorded, and the schools are sorted
based on number of preferences indicated. If the total
number of seats in a school is greater than the number
of children preferring it, then all the preferences
are converted into allotments. If the seats are not
fully exhausted, they remain vacant for the lack of
applicants. Also, such school (and not the candidates) is
automatically excluded from further allotments.
2. For the schools that have more applicants than their
available seats, an allotment algorithm is followed36. A
parent or a person from the audience is invited to stage
to pick-up number chits from bowls. ese numbers
form a random combination of digits to be used in the
lottery. e algorithm is as follows.
a. Consider all applicants and their preferred schools
that are within 1km radius of the applicant’s
address37.
b. Arrange the schools in descending order on the
basis of number of applications received.
c. For each school, make a list of applicants who have
indicated it as a preferred school. Here, the same
applicant can be a part of multiple lists, depending
on how many schools they have expressed an
interest in (and applicants are not removed from
other lists, even if they have been successful in any
one of them).
d. Arrange the list of applicants per school according
to their application form number.
e. Order these applicants further using the random
combination of digits obtained through the number
chits. e application form numbers are matched
with the digits one-by-one, and in combination.
When there is a match, the application is moved up
in the list.
f. Allot the vacant seats in the rst school (most
preferred) to all the applicants in this randomised
list from start to end- one by one, until the vacancy
is full, or all applicants have been allotted a seat.
g. Move to the next school, and continue until all the
schools have been considered.
3. Repeat steps ‘a’ to ‘g’ for all the applicants, and their
preferred schools that are within 2-3km distance.
As it is evident from the lottery logic, one applicant may
receive multiple allotments. at is, an applicant with 3
preferences may get allotted to all the three schools or even
none of them. e candidates have to choose one from the
allotted schools, and approach the corresponding / relevant
school oce within a specied period. ey need to carry
their allotment letter and certicates to conrm their
identity, address, and eligibility, which are veried at the
school. Seats that are le vacant aer the rst round of the
lottery are considered in the second round.
[35] e information presented here is based on the response from government
ocials and the public declaration of lottery logic as found here:
https://student.maharashtra.gov.in/adm_portal/app/webroot/uploads/
LotteryLogic.pdf (Last accessed 19 March 2017)
[36] See Annexure 1 for Maharashtra lottery logic in detail with example.
[37] While submitting the application form in Maharashtra, candidates indicate
their preferences for schools within 1km and those within 2-3km separately.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 59
Madhya Pradesh
Unlike the system in Maharashtra, only one seat is
allotted per successful applicant in Madhya Pradesh. e
randomisation is entirely computer-based. e lottery is
conducted at the State-level, in a public event organised
in Bhopal. It is inaugurated by an ocial of the level of
secretary or minister, who presses a key on computer to
initiate the lottery. Parents, government ocials, and school
representatives are invited to attend the event.
Before commencing the lottery, all applications are veried
for eligibility. Ineligible applicants, candidates with multiple
applications, and any data incorrectly entered as application
are ltered out of the lottery. eir status is updated on the
RTE 12(1)(c) portal along with the reasons for discarding
them in addition to being informed about it via SMS sent to
their registered mobile number.
e lottery in Madhya Pradesh provides applicant-led
allotments, unlike the school-vacancy led allotments
in Maharashtra38. Also, only one school is allotted per
successful applicant due to two features. Every applicant
is required to indicate desired schools for admission in
order of descending preferences. e allotment is made per
candidate, one at a time. Secondly, every school is made part
of the randomised allotment irrespective of the number of
applications received for the school. Implying, if a school
has received less applications than the available seats, it is
still possible that the seats will remain vacant because of
applicant’s preferences to other schools.
e lottery is governed by a principle that ‘allotment should
be made, when entry and neighbourhood criteria match
high preference’ and the process39 is as follows.
1. Filter applicant records and select all the eligible
applications, in terms of their eligibility and age, and
with no reference to the distance of preferred schools to
applicant’s address at this stage.
2. Every application will have 3 to 10 school preferences
in order. e birth date of the applicant is matched with
the school’s entry-age criterion. Every school will have
intake and entry criterion (age) to match. e entry
criterion is automatically obtained; it is based on entry
class (grade 1 or pre-primary) and the school board
(CBSE or State Board).
3. Randomly sort the list of applicants and schools.
4. Pick the rst applicant from the randomly sorted list.
Find if its rst preference corresponds to a school in
its own village or ward. If there is an exact match and
the school has vacancy, allot the school seat. Close the
application for further allotment. If there is no match,
consider the application again later.
5. Search through subsequent applicant records similarly
to match the top preference with a school in the same
village/ ward. Aer all the applicants having their
rst preference within the same village/ ward have
been allotted, conduct the same exercise with the next
preference.
6. Now, search for preferences for the schools in the
neighbouring ward/ village. Here, the neighbouring
ward/ village is predened40.
7. Continue doing the match until the school vacancy is
null or there is no preference le, whichever is earlier.
Karnataka
e algorithm utilises category-wise prioritisation of
candidates prescribed in the Karnataka RTE rules41. e
lottery is preceded by a number of ltration tests, which
remove duplicate and ineligible applicants. According
to a respondent from the department, about one lakh
applications were discarded last year. Post ltration, the
randomisation is followed on eligible and valid applications.
e lottery is broadly a stratied random allotment
of preferences. e allotment happens in groups. Post
randomisation, all applicants from the rst special set of
categories (orphans, HIV, transgender etc.) are picked.
Aer all of them are allotted seats, then the second set
(SC, ST) is picked. In the rst round, allotment for SC
and ST applicants is limited to 7.5% and 1.5% seats per
school reserved for them respectively. ese seats are never
allotted to other categories. In the second round, SC and ST
candidates are considered for SC-ST seats as well as other
16% seats. e third set of OBC, WS (weaker section), and
other categories is picked at the end. is internal division
is applied only when 1.5% of the total number of seats in a
school is at least one42.
[38] Here, an applicant-led allotment means that the lottery moves from one
applicant to another, lling-up school vacancies. In Maharashtra, the school
vacancy-led allotment moves from one school vacancy to another, while
considering applicants for it.
[39] ere is a subtle dierence caused by this principle. If two preferences are
near-equal, then the probability of getting a similarly-preferred school is
reduced, when it is placed below the other.
[40] e geographical boundary of every school and its neighbourhood is
predened. e rural (village) or urban (ward) sections are pre-identied
with their neighbouring sections. For a village, only neighbouring villages
are considered in neighbourhood. Whereas, a ward is identied with its
neighbouring wards as well as villages, if any.
[41] e lottery event in Karnataka appears not to be as widely publicised or
attended as an event by various stakeholders as in the other three States.
[42] at is, the internal division of seats per school is possible, only when the
smallest quota (ST 1.5%) can have at least one seat separated out. If 1.5%
of seats is less than one, then it is impossible to divide them amongst the
quotas. However, most of the schools will have enough seats (> 67 at entry
level) to make the internal division possible,
All participating applications are given a random rank by
the system within their categories. is rank determines the
order in which applications will be considered for allotment.
ey are allotted seats according to their preference,
considering one application at a time. It works as follows.
Suppose, applicant X has three preferences A, B, and C.
en, the system will check if seats are available in A. It will
allot or move to B, and then C. Only one seat will be allotted
per applicant. Aer X, the system will move to the X+1th
applicant. Here, X, X+1… X+N are random ranks given in
the beginning.
e random rank determines the allotment on rst come
rst serve basis. Suppose, applicant X has 5th preference
for School A (and its rst four preferences are unavailable),
while applicant X+1 has 1st preference for the same. Also,
let us assume that School A has only one seat that can
be claimed by X or X+1. In this case, applicant X will get
the seat, because it is considered before X+1, despite X+1
having a higher preference for School A.
us, the lottery moves in three phases in order. It follows
a random allotment process considering one applicant at a
time. e results are conveyed on the application website,
and via SMS in English sent to applicant’s registered
mobile number. e same lottery process is followed for
two rounds, except for SC-ST applicants whose claim for
seats expands aer the rst round. e rst round takes
place in March or April. e second round is conducted
for applicants, who did not get any allotment in the rst
one. If an applicant does not take admission, or is rejected
by the school for late reporting, or insuciency of valid
documents, then the corresponding seat is opened for
further rounds.
All allotments in lottery, as they are subject to preferences
limited to the same village/ ward, are for the schools located
within the same village or ward as that of the applicant.
e scope of allotments is proposed to expand from next
year (2017-18). All neighbouring wards will be numbered
serially (1, 2, 3…). If a candidate has said ‘yes’ to allotment
beyond the same village or ward, s/he will be eligible to get
a seat in any school in any neighbouring ward. is will be
randomly determined by the online system. No preference
will be asked from the candidate in this regard.
e third round of lottery happens oine. Based on
a response from an ocial involved with the RTE in
Bangalore, ‘very few’ applicants, ‘about hundred’ get
admission in the third round. It is conducted oine
because the online system cannot track rejected or not-
approached applicants precisely, and that the online data
might be erroneous. Although oine, it requires a prior
online application. All applicants who have submitted
online application form, and full one of the following
three conditions may participate in this round: 1) they were
allotted a school, but failed to approach it in given time; 2)
their application was rejected by the system; 3) they received
no allotment despite submitting a complete application. To
participate, the applicants need to approach local District
Collector or an appointed authority with a requisition letter.
At the local authority’s discretion, they may be allotted a
seat in nearby school. is process does not always involve a
random lottery, but negotiations with BEOs and respective
authorities. According to a few respondents, some schools
utilise the 3rd round for conrming 12(1)(c) admissions
from local candidates. For example, certain school prefers
candidates with physical disabilities and gathers suitable
children from nearby households in the third round.
As it may be observed, the Karnataka lottery system
also follows applicant-led logic. However, it reduces the
signicance of school preferences, by considering one
candidate at a time. Also, it restricts SC-ST candidates from
claiming other seats, until the rst round is over. e lottery
logic has a clear priority for children from the vulnerable
groups such as HIV infected or orphans. Also, it may be
noted that the allotment is randomised irrespective of
whether the number of applications exceed the number of
seats in the school, unlike in Maharashtra.
Rajasthan
Amongst the four lottery systems discussed in this chapter,
the Rajasthan lottery system is arguably the oldest system
of all. While Maharashtra also began the RTE 12(1)(c)
admissions through online systems, the implementation
was restricted to Mumbai and Pune only. Rajasthan has
been running the RTE 12(1)(c) admissions throughout the
State since 2012 (oine, and online 2014 onwards). is
signicance and uniqueness of Rajasthan is reected in the
procedures followed for design and implementation of the
lottery. It is a public event, wherein the Chief Minister along
with other Ministers and Government ocials are invited.
ey publicly initiate the lottery on a computer designated
by NIC Sta. e NIC Sta is housed within the education
department, which coordinates these activities along with
the department of education ocials. e lottery concludes
within an hour or slightly longer; its results are sent via SMS
to candidates like that in other States.
Contrary to the idea of allotment used in the other three
States, the lottery in Rajasthan does not determine any
nal allotment, but the priority with which an applicant’s
particular preference may be considered for admission. It
works as follows43.
1. All applications are randomly sorted and allocated a
random rank.
[43] See Annexure 1 for Rajasthan lottery logic in detail with example. We thank
Mr. Vinod Jain for his note, which helped in writing these sections.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 61
2. e ascending order of ranks determines the sequence
with which applications are considered further.
3. Each application is opened, and its preferences are
separated into two groups.
a. e rst group contains all the preferences by all
the eligible applicants, except those referring to the
schools located outside the applicant’s own ward or
village.
b. e second group contains the preferences not
included in the rst group, i.e., those referring to
the schools located outside applicant’s own ward of
village.
4. All the preferences within a group are randomly sorted,
and given a school-wise priority number in order.
A priority number is allotted to every preference indicated
by an applicant, so long as the applicant record satises the
age entry criterion (determined at the State level, can be
modied by the school in their prole keeping the age range
within specied limits). e preferences in the rst group
are allotted priority numbers rst. For each preference, if
it is the rst instance for the preferred school, the priority
number allotted is one. at is, the rst randomly selected
applicant-preference from the rst group will have the top
priority number. As long as it gures in the preference list of
at least one applicant, every school will have one top priority
applicant, and others allotted serially thereaer. Aer all
the rst group preferences of all the applicants are allotted
a priority number, the same process is followed for their
second group preferences. A particular applicant may have a
priority number 1 for more than one school, depending on
whether earlier applicants had indicated that school as their
preference.
DISCUSSION
e four dierent algorithms used for RTE 12(1)(c)
admission in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,
and Karnataka represent dierent allocation techniques.
We briey discuss the similarities amongst dierent lottery
systems, features that distinguish them from each-other, and
possible merits or limitations of the processes.
Table 8.1: Similarities and Dierences amongst the four lottery designs
RTE Lottery Features Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Karnataka
Public Disclosure Lottery logic along
with prioritisation is
communicated through
website.
Prioritisation with
respect to neighbourhood
(i.e. likelihood of
receiving allotment
within the same ward/
village) is communicated
through website.
Prioritisation with
respect to neighbourhood
is communicated through
website.
Prioritisation with
respect to neighbourhood
(category-wise
prioritisation mentioned
in the rules) is
communicated through
website.
Randomisation sequence School-vacancy-led, i.e.
moves from one school to
another
Application-led (all top
preferences at a time)
Application-
led(Applicant-school
preference combinations)
Application-led (One
application at a time)
Allotment per applicant Multiple and conrmed Single and conrmed Multiple and tentative Single and conrmed
Preferences All preferences are equal,
no order
Ordered All preferences are equal,
no order
Ordered
Lottery as randomised
allotment of seats
Randomisation only
for schools with seats <
applications
All allocations
randomised
All allocations
randomised
All allocations
randomised
Basis of prioritisation
between two allotments
Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Neighbourhood and
applicant category
Randomisation
procedure
Manual and computer-
based combination
Entirely computer-based Entirely computer-based Entirely computer-based
Allotment with respect to
ordered preferences
Not applicable All top preferences rst Not applicable Follows preferences per
applicant, one at a time
Format of result List of all conrmed
schools
Name of allotted school Priority number for each
preference submitted
Name of allotted school
e sequential allotment in Karnataka creates a
signicant disadvantage in the system. It considers one
applicant at a time from top to the lowest preference,
ignoring the higher preferences of other applicants. As
discussed earlier, this system might render a large number
of allotments that are not highly preferred by the parents.
Also, the Karnataka lottery allots a school outside of the
candidate’s preferences, if no match is found for the child.
is allotment might go wasted, since parents might
not take admission into such school. Implying, the data
on allotment and admission in Karnataka is likely to
mislead the analyses, rendering a large number of rejected
allotments.
e Karnataka lottery makes an explicit use of
inclusiveness criterion, as articulated in the Karnataka
RTE rules. It separates out candidates from special
categories, and allots them seats before anyone else. is
is a guaranteed provision for children from vulnerable
groups. Also, since the categories are merely attributes of the
applicant records, it is possible to include new categories,
exclude existing ones, or rearrange their sequence without
major changes in the lottery design.
e algorithm in Madhya Pradesh focuses on order of
preferences, although it also allots only one school at the
end. All the top preferences and neighbourhood criteria are
considered rst. is increases the likelihood of securing
admission in a nearby school, if it has been indicated
as a top preference. e high predictability might add
convenience in decision making for the applicants.
Applicants in Maharashtra and Rajasthan get more time
to decide on their school preferences. Both in Madhya
Pradesh and Karnataka, parents are asked to articulate their
choices before submitting the application. at is, in the
month of January or during the application season, parents
are supposed to collect information about various schools
in their neighbourhood and arrange their preferences
in strict order. is scenario is avoided in Maharashtra
and Rajasthan. In Maharashtra, parents can visit all the
allotted schools with certainty of admission in any of
them. Similarly, the Rajasthan lottery can enable parents to
consider multiple schools based on their priority numbers.
In Maharashtra, multiple seats can be blocked for one
candidate aer the rst round. Nonetheless, as the logic
traces school vacancies, there are distinct benets for the
schools as well as parents. As the schools with applications
less than the number of seats are pre-lled, an assured list
of candidates is made available. is enables applicants to
have a backup option, if they fail to get a seat in a highly-
preferred school. Also, the schools are made aware of
the candidates, who are considering admission there,
irrespective of the nal conversion. ey can contact the
candidates independently, and persuade them to join
the school. Also, the Maharashtra system needs multiple
rounds, since new vacancies are created aer the candidates
choose one out of the many allotments.
e lottery in Rajasthan accommodates multiple
preferences without blocking seats, unlike in Maharashtra.
Parents can apply to a school through oine as well as
online mode. Post allotment, they know about the certainty
of admission in school (for which they have a priority
number of one), as well as the probability of securing others.
Also, if the priority number for a school is less than its
vacancy, then the admission is as certain as that for priority
number 1. us, parents can experiment with their choices
post allotment. Moreover, this allotment does not block
multiple vacancies as in Maharashtra. If a candidate does
not take admission through an allotment in the rst round
in Rajasthan in the stipulated time period- usually one
or two weeks post result, the seat is instantly available to
another candidate with a priority number.
SUGGESTIONS
Based on the descriptive analysis presented in this chapter,
we believe that elements of the the Rajasthan lottery system,
with modications drawn from othe States, hold the
promise of being a comprehensive, robust, and applicant-
friendly algorithm. Data on outcomes at various stages in
the computer programme (such as list of applicants ltered
out before the lottery with reason, list of applicants allotted
within the same ward/village etc.), school vacancies, and
conversion of allotments to admissions post each lottery
round would help researchers assess their ecacy of various
designs, and we hope governments would share these
publicly.
1. Accept oine applications and merge them with online
applications
a. e Rajasthan lottery system is robust since it
accommodates oine as well as online applications
into one logical ow. Also, it does not burden
applicants for making ordered choices beforehand.
2. Give multiple chances, not allotments
a. e priority number system in Rajasthan does
not result in multiple conrmed allotments like in
Maharashtra. It renders specic numbers, which are
signs of the best possible choices parents can make
post lottery. While doing so, the lottery already
incorporates the conditions for neighbourhood.
3. Indicate the probability of converting the allotment to
admission
a. e lottery result can indicate priority number along
with school vacancy for each school. For example,
a priority number 10 holds the same probability as
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 63
that of priority number 1, if the school’s vacancy
is less than or equal to 10. We suggest that this be
explicitly communicated to the candidates.
4. Relook at provision of allotments outside the preferences
a. States like Karnataka allow applicants to indicate
their consent in being allotted a school outside those
indicated in the preferences. Although this might
increase the exibility in the allotment process, the
complete opening up of possible allotments implies
that there is a risk of allotting schools that parents are
not at all interested in. Aer such allotments, they
may lose any chance for further rounds.
CHAPTER 9:
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
Shruti Ambast and Akriti Gaur44
Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act has been at the centre of a
signicant amount of litigation since the Act came into force.
e judgments issued by the Supreme Court and various
High Courts delineate and clarify various aspects of the
provision such as applicability to dierent types of schools,
applicability to pre-primary classes, eligibility criteria, scope
of school choice, and validity of admission procedures. is
chapter provides an overview of legal developments on
Section 12(1)(c) and attendant issues, focussing on important
cases which have been contested in the year 2016-2017
(January 2016 to June 2017).
INTRODUCTION
Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act places an obligation
upon non-minority unaided private schools and special
category government schools to reserve 25% seats in their
entry level classes for children belonging to economically
weaker sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups (DG).
e provision holds staggering implications for all the
stakeholders involved. It imposes a positive obligation
on private schools, which enjoy a reasonable measure of
autonomy in their operations, to provide free education.
It requires governments to reimburse all such schools for
the education of children so admitted, indicating large
budgetary expenses. Finally, it secures a rare opportunity
for marginalised children to seek admission in schools they
might otherwise not be able to enrol in. Given the stakes,
the provision has naturally been subject to a lot of litigation
since the time the RTE Act came into force. is provision
is envisaged as a means of building social integration and
inclusion in school education45. While the implementation
of the Section 12(1)(c) by governments has been poor,
judicial intervention has proven to be a useful instrument of
furthering this objective in some instances.
In the eight years since the RTE Act came into force, Section
12(1)(c) of the Act has been the subject of litigation all
over India. In fact, as much as one-fourth of total litigation
under the RTE Act in High Courts and the Supreme Court
[44] e authors work as Research Fellows at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a
non-prot organisation in New Delhi.
[45] RTE section wise rationale, page 7, accessed May 31, 2017 <http://mhrd.
gov.in/sites/ upload_les/mhrd/les/upload_document/RTE_Section_
wise_rationale_rev_0.pdf>
[46] See page 56, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, “Law in Numbers”, Accessed
May 31, 2017 <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/reports-1/2016/12/2/law-in-
numbers-evidence-based-approaches-to-legal-reform>
between 2010-2016 has been around this provision46. is
may be explained by the fact that the provision provides a
critical and immediately realisable entitlement – admission
into a neighbourhood private school for children from EWS
and DG categories – as opposed to other provisions of the
Act which require more time and resources to full such
as infrastructural standards and appointment of teachers.
e tendency to approach courts may also be reective
of the possibly weak enforcement of the provision by the
government and local authorities.
RECAP OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS 20102016
e rst edition of the State of the Nation report discussed
some legal lacunae arising from both the substantive content
of the provision, as well as the way it has been draed.
e issues include lack of clarity over reimbursement for
admissions in pre-primary classes and for those beyond
the minimum 25%, lack of a means for preventing
dropouts among children admitted under Section 12(1)(c),
exemption of minority schools arising out of a problematic
interpretation of the balance between minority rights and
RTE, and deciencies in the grievance redress mechanisms.
Some of these lacunae have been partially addressed in
litigation, which has taken place since the enactment of the
RTE Act.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 65
[47] Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6
SCC 102. [“Society”]
[48] Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 1.
[“Pramati”]
[49] See Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, “Right to Education and Minority Rights”,
Accessed July 29, 2017 <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/reports-1/2016/1/19/
right-to-education-and-minority-rights>
[50] For a full discussion on these cases, see State of the Nation: RTE Section
12(1)(c) 2015 Report.
[51] See Jatin Singh v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 2012 XAD (Delhi) 296
and Himangi v. GNCTD of Delhi, 204 (2013) DLT 147.
[52] Abhyutthanam Society v. State of Rajasthan and Another, Rajasthan High
Court (decided on 13.05.2016)
e biggest legal challenge to Section 12(1)(c) was mounted
by private schools in 2012. e Supreme Court, in a
seminal ruling, held that the RTE Act was constitutional
and that Section 12(1)(c) was applicable to unaided private
schools47. However, it excluded minority unaided schools
from the application of the Act. In a subsequent ruling
2014, the Court excluded minority aided schools from the
Act as well48. However, due to the lack of clarity provided
by the Supreme Court in Society and Pramati, dierent
High Courts in some isolated instances have allowed the
application of RTE provisions such as the no-detention
policy and ban on corporal punishment to minority
schools49.
Various aspects of this Section 12(1)(c) have been contested
in Courts, including but not limited to the following:
applicability to residential schools, schools with pre-existing
reservations, applicability to pre-school classes, calculation
of the 25% proportion; eligibility criteria in terms of both
income and disadvantage, scope of school choice, denition
of ‘neighbourhood’, and reimbursement50.
OVERVIEW OF LITIGATION IN 201617
is section provides a summary of litigation over 12(1)(c)
that has taken place in High Courts and the Supreme Court
over the past year. e denitions of ‘disadvantaged group’
and ‘weaker section’ under this provision, and intended
beneciaries have been a contentious issue. is year has
also witnessed disputes on the specics of States’ executive
policy on the provision and its implementation. Moreover,
there have been cases where Courts have had to step in
simply to direct compliance with the law in force.
Eligibility criteria
Under the RTE Act, two groups of children are eligible
for reservation under Section 12(1)(c): ‘child belonging
to disadvantaged group’ and ‘child belonging to weaker
section’. e former includes children with disabilities,
children belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
socially and educationally backward classes, and other
disadvantaged groups that may be decided by the State
Government. e latter includes children whose parents’
annual income is lower than the limit specied by the State
Government.
e denitions and criteria notied by the State
Government are crucial as they determine inclusion or
exclusion from benets under the provision. Previous
attempts by States to introduce additional criteria or restrict
eligibility have been challenged in Courts and struck
down51.
In a 2016 case, the Rajasthan High Court ruled against the
Rajasthan Government’s policy on eligibility for 12(1)(c)
admissions in the interest of making the free seats available
to a larger number of children. In 2011, the Rajasthan
Government had notied that ‘children belonging to
disadvantaged groups’ would include a child belonging to
‘Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes
whose parents’ annual income does not exceed Rs. 2.5 lakhs’.
However, this inclusion was reversed in a subsequent 2016
notication. e new notication also removed the income
limit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs specied for dening the category of
‘children belonging to weaker sections’, instead restricting
it to children from Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. e
income limit had been present in the 2011 notication.
e notication was challenged in the Rajasthan High
Court. e case raised two signicant questions: (i) can
the State government remove the category of socially and
educationally backward classes from the denition of
disadvantaged group? and (ii) can the State government
remove the income limit criterion from the denition of
weaker sections?
Regarding the rst, the Court observed52 that the State
government is not competent to amend the denition
of disadvantaged group in this manner, as it violates the
denition specied under the RTE Act, which clearly
contemplates the inclusion of children from OBC categories.
e Court also cited admission numbers to show that the
exclusion of OBC children from the disadvantaged category
caused a signicant drop in applications received under that
category for the 2016-17 academic session. Regarding the
second question, the Court ruled that possession of a BPL
card cannot be the single eligibility criterion for weaker
sections, as the RTE Act clearly states that weaker sections
must be identied through a minimum annual income
(whereas the BPL category is based on a range of other
socio-economic considerations). e Court also observed
that while there might be some overlap in the eligibility
for disadvantaged group and weaker section, the RTE Act
guarantees benets for both categories separately, therefore
it is not necessary that a child should belong to both
categories in order to avail such benets. However, it did not
clarify whether this meant that an OBC child whose parent’s
annual income is over Rs. 2.5 lakh would also be eligible
under the disadvantaged group category. Following appeal,
the Supreme Court issued an interim order stating that the
High Court’s ruling shall not aect the admissions in the
2016-2017 session53.
A challenge might soon be placed before the Gujarat High
Court in response to income limits for SC/OBC groups
notied by the Gujarat government54.
However, there has also been an instance where the criteria
laid down by the government was found to be reasonable.
A petition before the Bombay High Court challenged a
government resolution allowing children residing outside
three kilometres of the school to be eligible for 12(1)(c)
admissions in particular circumstances55. ese children
would be required to bear transportation costs on their own.
It was argued that this would result in diluting the nature of
12(1)(c) seats as ‘free seats.’ However, this contention was
rejected by the Court and the resolution was upheld.
Inclusion of dierently-abled children
In August 2016, the Delhi High Court gave a favourable
ruling for the admission of a dierently-abled child in a
neighbourhood school under Section 12(1)(c)56. e Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal had directed a private school
to admit the child who had lost his leg in an accident and
acquired a prosthetic leg. When the school challenged this
direction in the High Court, the Court held that while the
tribunal did not have jurisdiction to order the admission,
the child was nevertheless eligible for admission under both
EWS and DG categories. is case is noteworthy because
the Court waved aside several technicalities while directing
the admission owing to the circumstances of the child’s
disadvantage, such as the fact that he resided in Ghaziabad
and not Delhi, and that there was some discrepancy in his
date of birth. e Court held that the admission would be
in the interest of the child and further reasoned that his
admission would ‘make the general students more sensitive
and humane as they would appreciate the challenges faced
by a student with disability and poverty’. is assertion of
the Court reiterates the spirit of the RTE Act as envisaged at
the time the legislation was enacted.
e Delhi High Court has previously given rulings which
favoured not only the admission of dierently-abled
children under the DG category, but also directed the
provision of appropriate facilities and special educators
for such children in schools. is is an important instance,
where judicial intervention has widened the ambit of the
provision and addressed gaps in executive policy.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court, in response to
a petition highlighting discrimination faced by children
aected by HIV, has asked States to consider including such
children in the DG category under the RTE Act57. Inclusion
in this category and the ensuing benets under Section
12(1)(c) can serve as an important vehicle for bringing
marginalised children into the mainstream education
system.
Admission Procedure
It can be noted that many States have chosen to move the
admissions under 12(1)(c) to online portals, and procedures
have changed accordingly. In one case, the Delhi High
Court recognised that the purpose of the online portal
introduced by the Delhi Directorate of Education was
to ensure that admissions were conducted in a fair and
transparent manner58. Accordingly, it held that the parents
and their wards did not have the right to seek admission for
reserved seats on the strength of a manual application, and
therefore their plea contesting denial of admission was not
valid.
In the same case, the Court also claried the period till
which admission for the reserved seats can be extended. e
RTE Act provides for an extended period for admissions
(both reserved category and general), and further prohibits
denial of admission even if admission is sought aer the
extended period. Moreover, the Act also provides for special
training of children admitted aer the extended period.
Under the Delhi RTE Rules, the extended period is required
to be of ve months, indicating that admissions can be
made till August 31st. Moreover, the Rules also state that
a child admitted aer the extended period should receive
special training for a minimum of three months. e Court,
taking these facts into account, argued that while a child can
be admitted aer the extended period, the period open to
admission must be a reasonable one, and a child cannot be
admitted into a class as late as the end of the academic year
(March 31st). e Court held that admissions can only be
made up till December 31st to allow for a minimum three
months of special training, and therefore, admissions made
aer December 31st could not be considered valid.
[53] Accessed June 30, 2017 http://www.livelaw.in/rajasthan-hc-ruling-rte-act-
not-aect-admissions-already-nalized-present-academic-year/
[54] Accessed June 30, 2017 http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-
india/dalit-group-set-to-move-hc-against-income-cap-for-scssts-and-
obcs-2849761/
[55] Savari Muthu Micheal Selvan v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine
Bom 165
[56] Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
2016 SCC Online Del 4797
[57] Accessed June 30, 2017 : http://www.livelaw.in/not-put-hiv-aected-kids-
disadvantaged-group-education-sc/
[58] Neeraj Kumar and Ors. v. Venkateshwar Global School and Ors, Writ
Petition 7945 of 2016, decided on 31.03.2017
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 67
School Choice
Two States have attempted to limit the option of availing
seats under Section 12(1)(c) by making such admission
contingent on unavailability of seats in government schools
in the neighbourhood. e Governments of Uttar Pradesh
and Himachal Pradesh had both notied guidelines to this
eect59. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was led before
the Allahabad High Court challenging the executive order
of the Uttar Pradesh government which imposed these
guidelines60. e order directed that Section 12(1)(c) would
apply only in cases where no seat is available in government
or aided schools. e Court reasoned that the purpose
of the provision was to assimilate children belonging to
DG and EWS categories into the mainstream and aord
them access to facilities in unaided private schools. It was
held that the executive order was against the intent of
the provision as laid down in the RTE Act and hence, in
violation of the Act itself. Accordingly, the Court directed
the State Government to revise the order.
e guidelines issued by the Government of Himachal
Pradesh were also challenged in Court. e Himachal
Pradesh High Court relied on the pronouncement in the
Uttar Pradesh case and struck down the guidelines61. It
argued that the guidelines imposed a hierarchy of benets
eectively curtailing the aspirations of DG and EWS groups
to study in private schools, and therefore violated the Act.
Dual entry
e proviso to Section 12 of the RTE Act states that schools
which have pre-primary classes will have to reserve 25%
of seats in these classes for children from DG and EWS
categories. is proviso has led to considerable confusion
for governments and schools. e Karnataka Government
had issued an order which required private schools to make
Section 12(1)(c) admissions in both pre-primary and class
1. When challenged by a school, the Karnataka High Court
observed that the proviso should be read as an addendum to
the main provision and not as an exception, in keeping with
legislative intent62. It accordingly ruled the requirement to
simultaneously admit DG and EWS students in both classes
was valid under the Act. In 2015, a similar order of the
Maharashtra Government had been held to be valid by the
Bombay High Court63.
[59] Government Orders dated 3 December 2012 and 6 January 2015
[60] Ajay Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2016(4) ADJ662
[61] Namita Maniktala v. State of H.P. and Ors., High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, CWP No. 355 of 2013, decided On: 30.08.2016
[62] Soujanya Patel Trust v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 1001
[63] Dr.Vikhe Patil Foundation’s Vikhe Patil Memorial School Pune and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors., 2015 (6) ABR 53
[64] Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Seema and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine PH
4118
[65] Accessed June 30, 2017 <http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/
telangana/2017/jun/27/pil-led-for-implementation-of-rte-in-schools-in-
ap-ts-1621278.html?>
[66] Accessed June 30, 2017 <https://thewire.in/21254/the-minority-institution-
tag-is-very-ambiguous-and-this-must-be-corrected/>
[67] Accessed June 30, 2017 <http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-can-
government-give-free-booksuniform-to-poor-students-in-private-schools-
delhi-high-court-2164206>
CONCLUSION
From a perusal of the cases discussed above, it can be seen
that Courts have generally chosen to act in the interest of
the disadvantaged child. Executive policy has been struck
down where it narrows the net of eligibility for Section
12(1)(c), constrains the choice and ability of children from
DG and EWS categories to avail their entitlement, or is
otherwise arbitrary or restrictive. On the other hand, Courts
have refrained from interfering in cases where matters of
administrative procedure are at stake.
e role of Courts remains vital when it comes to directing
compliance with the RTE Act. e Punjab and Haryana
High Court had to direct a Kendriya Vidyalaya school to
modify its admission policy in accordance with Section 12
of the Act64. e school had not been aware of the provision
being in force. Recently, a PIL was led in the Hyderabad
High Court seeking implementation of Section 12(1)(c) in
both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana65.
Finally, there are some issues discussed in previous editions
of the report which remain unresolved. First, the exemption
granted to minority schools from the application of the
RTE Act continues to be in force, pushing a large number
of schools out of the ambit of Section 12(1)(c). It also
appears to have pushed more and more private schools to
seek minority status to evade the obligation, even though
they are not necessarily serving minority communities,
and others to acquire fake certication66. Second, there
is still a lack of clarity over who should cover the costs
of textbooks and uniforms for children admitted under
Section 12(1)(c). In 2016, the Delhi High Court had asked
the Delhi government to formulate an appropriate policy for
textbooks and uniforms aer detecting some irregularities
in the same67.
Box 1: Delhi HC asks for vacant seats to be disclosed online
Anurag Kundu
e Delhi High Court has directed three municipal corporations (MCD) in Delhi to make the details of the number of
vacant seats in the private schools recognised by MCD available online to the public.
In a PIL, it was argued that the availability of information in public domain is an essential condition for the exercise
of a right. Since there is no publicly available data about the availability of seats in private schools under the Section
12(1)(c) of Right to Education Act, it is leading to the violation of the fundamental right of around 12000 children,
who could have availed admissions in nearly 1000 private schools regulated by the three municipal corporations. e
litigants used section 9(e) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act for arguing their case. e section states
that “every local authority shall ensure and monitoring admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by
every child residing within its jurisdictions”. e litigation argued that availability of information with the local authority
is a pre-condition to “monitoring” as envisaged in Section 9(e).
Delivering the judgment, the court has directed the corporations to upload the seat status by 31st December 2017 along
with detailed admission process including eligibility, documents required, and grievance redressal process. e local
bodies have been directed to upload the complete status of admission under the provision once the process is over, and
do so yearly.
e judgment is particularly useful, as the information regarding the seats is not available in real time in majority of the
States. It sets a precedent for similar PILs to be taken up in other States.
Refer: Anurag Kundu & Ors vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. 2017. 12018 (Delhi High Court, May 1).
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 69
CHAPTER 10:
COSTS, COMPENSATIONS,
AND CHALLENGES
Ambrish Dongre, Avani Kapur68
INTRODUCTION
Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (henceforth RTE Act)
provides for reservation of at least 25 percent of the total
class strength at entry level (pre-primary or grade 1) in
a non-minority private unaided neighborhood school.
e school is responsible to provide free and compulsory
education to the admitted students till the completion of
grade 8. In turn, state governments are to reimburse such
schools and the reimbursement amount per admitted
student is mandated to be the lower of a) actual amount
charged by the school from students other than those
admitted through 12(1)(c) and, b) the recurring per-student
expenditure incurred by the government.
Section 12(1)(c) is unique for a number of reasons. First,
it places the legal duty on private schools to provide free
and compulsory education in a manner decided by the
government. As noted by Mehendale et al, 201569, this
has implications on a number of factors, ranging from
administrative (how the rules are operationalized, the
existence of regulatory structures), process related (how
per-student costs are determined, fee reimbursements,
admission processes etc.) to social-economic factors (such
as school preparedness, socio-cultural dynamics, family
support and peer interactions).
However, despite the passage of 7 years since the RTE
came into force, only a handful of states are implementing
the provision and it remains one of the most contested
provisions with numerous implementation hurdles70. is
chapter focuses on process-related aspects, specically
reimbursements to private schools. It highlights the gap
between notied per-student reimbursement costs and
estimated per-student expenditure as well as gap between
notied per-student costs and actual reimbursements
(proxied by per student ‘approved’ amount under SSA),
followed by their implications. e chapter concludes
with suggestions to bring clarity and transparency in
reimbursement-related aspects.
PROCESS OF CALCULATING PERSTUDENT
RECURRING COST
e process and manner of calculating per-student71
recurring cost incurred by the government continue
to be extremely opaque. According to a Government
of India (GoI) notication in April 2010, per student
reimbursement is to be determined on the basis of the total
annual recurring expenditure incurred by the “appropriate
government”, either from its own funds (line department
expenses) or funds provided by the central government
on elementary education (such as SSA) and “by any other
authority on elementary education in respect of all schools
established, owned or controlled by it.72”
e total annual recurring expenditure of the State
Government is to be then divided by the total number
of children enrolled in all such schools, to arrive at the
per-student recurring expenditure. Aided schools are not
included in the calculation for estimating total expenses73.
Whilst these broad guidelines exist, as per Section 38(2)
(d), it is le up to the respective state governments to decide
the manner and extent of reimbursements. However, none
of the state governments implementing 12(1)(c) have made
available the detailed method of calculating these notied
costs in the public domain.
Hence, we rely on two main sources for calculating per
student costs: - a) e proposed unit costs as mentioned by
states in the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Annual Work Plan and
Budgets (AWP&B) and b) the actual per-student recurring
[68] Authors are Fellows at the Centre for Policy Research and Senior
Researchers with Accountability Initiative, CPR, New Delhi.
[69] Mehendale A et al (2015), “Right to Education and Inclusion in Private
Unaided Schools: An Exploratory Study in Bengaluru and Delhi”, Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol 1 No. 7, February 14, 2015
[70] Almost 24% of the litigation related to RTE in High Courts and the
Supreme Court during 2010 to 2016 pertained to section 12(1)(c).
Detailes are in the report ‘Law in Numbers: Evidence Based Approaches
to Legal Reforms’by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, available at https://
vidhilegalpolicy.in/reports-1/2016/12/2/law-in-numbers-evidence-based-
approaches-to-legal-reform
[71] While the RTE Act and subsequent notications refer to it as per-child,
given that it is based on the number of students enrolled, we have referred
to it as per-student.
[72] See this link: http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_les/mhrd/les/upload_
document/RTI1.pdf
[73] According to the GoI notication dated April 9, 2010, per child expenditure
is calculated by total annual recurring expenditure by the appropriate
government for all schools in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2
divided by total number of children enrolled in such schools. Sub-clause
(i) of clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE act refers to “a school established,
owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local authority”.
expenditure calculated from state budgets. Both of these are
described below.
VARIATION IN NOTIFIED PERSTUDENT
RECURRING COSTS ACROSS STATES
On the 1st of April 2014, the SSA Framework was
amended to assist states/Union Territories (UTs) towards
reimbursement of costs incurred with respect to admissions
under Section 12(1)(c). e reimbursement is based on
notied per-student cost norms of the state/UT, subject
to a maximum ceiling of 20 percent of the size of the total
Annual Work Plan and Budgets (AWP&B) approved for the
state /UT under SSA and is available from 2015-16.
In nancial year (FY) 2015-16, reimbursement for students
in the previous academic year (namely 2014-15), was
approved for 7 states under SSA.
As can be seen in Table 10.1, there are signicant state
variations in notied per-student costs. Whilst the notied
cost was the highest in Uttarakhand at Rs. 18,311, followed
by Rajasthan at Rs. 14,141 it remained low in Chhattisgarh
at Rs. 7,650 and Uttar Pradesh at Rs. 5,400.
Part of this variation may be driven by dierences in per-
student recurring expenditures, of which teacher salaries
is a main component. Ramchandran (2015)74, for instance,
found that a salary for a newly appointed teacher may vary
from Rs. 14,031 in Odisha to as high as Rs. 36,588 in Punjab
(urban). But in addition, dierences may also be the result
of dierent methodologies adopted for calculating the
notied cost.
Table 10.1: Per-student recurring costs notified by
state governments
S.No State Per-student costs for students
in 2014-15 academic year
1Chhattisgarh 7,650
2Gujarat 10,000
3Karnataka 11,848
5Odisha 9,184
6Rajasthan 14,14175
7 Uttar Pradesh 5,400
8Uttarakhand 18,311
Source: Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 311, Answered on 21st December 2015.
Note: Figures are for Primary sections and do not include Pre-Primary.
COMPARISON OF NOTIFIED PERSTUDENT COSTS
WITH ESTIMATED PERSTUDENT EXPENDITURE
Given the lack of a declared methodology, the veracity of
notied costs remains a concern. In fact, this has become a
major issue of discord between the government and private
schools which have admitted children through Section
12(1)(c). In this section, we compute and report per-student
recurring expenditure for selected states using their budget
documents (henceforth, estimated per-student recurring
expenditure), and compare them with their notied costs.
Before we proceed, two key points must be discussed. First,
there is a time lag between the year of calculation of the
notied cost, the academic year to which it pertains and
the nancial year in which the cost is actually reimbursed.
e Government of Odisha is one of the few states which
clearly outline the timeline of the reimbursement process.
It states, “per-child expenditure incurred of the previous
year to be reimbursed to the school in the current year.
Reimbursement proposal submitted by schools in the
current year will be considered in the next nancial year”76
While there might be state-variations, conversations with
ocials from other states suggest a similar process. is
suggests that, for students studying in academic year 2015-
16, unit costs are calculated based on expenditure incurred
in FY 2014-15 and oen the reimbursement is done in FY
2016-17. We have thus tried to follow a similar process in
our calculations for comparison with notied costs.
Second, it is important to note that collecting data
from state budgets is a complex exercise. Indian budget
documents follow a six-tier accounting classication, and
are grouped into sectors which are further sub-divided
into sub-sectors and major heads of account. Despite
this, budget data is oen not disaggregated making the
classication of expenditures a dicult exercise. For
example, a budget head even at the most disaggregated
level available may be classied vaguely, say as “grants-in-
aid general”, making it dicult to ascertain what specic
activity is being carried out with this money. Secondly,
there are also dierences across states on the classication
of schemes/programmes. To give an example, whilst the
head of account for elementary education across both State
and Union Government is the budget head 2202.01, the
classication of whether a particular scheme or activity
falls under this particular code (or in other words is
classied by the state as “elementary education”) rests with
respective state governments. us, while some states such
as Karnataka include the Mid-Day Meal scheme under
elementary education, others such as Gujarat include it
under the budget head for nutrition or 2236. In Rajasthan,
as the Panchayati Raj Department is responsible for
[74] Ramachandran, Vimala (2015), “Teachers in the Indian education system:
Synthesis oa a nine state study”, National University of Educational
Planning and Administration, NUEPA, New Delhi. Available at http://www.
nuepa.org/New/download/Research/Teachers_in_the_Indian_Education_
System.pdf
[75] his is consistent with the Government of Rajasthan, GO: i.9(1) f’k{kk
-5/2010 ikVZ dated 25/06/2014 which states that the unit cost is Rs.
14,034+Rs.107 for textbooks.
[76] Government of Odisha, School and Mass Department, Circular Number
4030(30)/Plg/14 dated 20.05.14. Available online at: http://opepa.odisha.
gov.in/website/Download/4030.pdf
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 71
implementing MDM, expenditure is booked under other
rural development programmes (2215). Similarly, in FY
2015-16, Karnataka included the expenditure incurred on
the reimbursement of per-student costs under RTE under
2202.80 (general education).
is complexity of budget data in India coupled with the
absence of a clear methodology by the States on which items
are included from their calculations of notied costs, has
made it dicult to calculate per-child recurring expenditure
relevant for Section 12(1)(c).
We have thus followed a three-step process. First, since we
are interested in recurring expenditure, we have focused
on revenue expenditure under elementary education and
ignored capital expenditure (4202.01.201). Secondly, we
have excluded expenditure on non-government schools
to be consistent with what the Act says about calculating
reimbursement expenditure77.
ere still remains, lack of clarity on a number of
expenditure items. For example, private schools are not
mandated to serve MDM and thus it’s unclear whether it
is included in the calculations. Moreover, in some states,
expenditure on elementary education includes expenditure
on distance education, adult education as well as activities
conducted to get out-of-school children enrolled into
schools and informal education. ese may not be directly
relevant to costs incurred on students admitted under
Section 12(1)(c). Similarly, general administrative costs
(such as expenditure on the oce of District Education
Ocer (DEO), to give an example) are included in
elementary education budget. ese costs are not incurred
on government schools per se but on overall education
machinery. Some states also incur expenditure which seems
to be capital expenditure but is booked under revenue
expenditure. For instance, Gujarat has a signicant amount
of expenditure incurred on “improvement of physical
facilities in primary schools”; “refurbishing of existing
primary school classrooms”; “sanitary facilities for girls in
upper primary schools”.
For our last step then, in addition to excluding expenditure
incurred on non-government schools from our calculation,
we have also excluded expenditure on MDM, distance, adult
and informal education, seemingly capital expenditure and
administrative expenses including inspection – henceforth
called “others”. Our expenditure thus only includes teacher
salaries, textbooks, uniforms, scholarships, teacher trainings
and other miscellaneous expenditure78.
As can be seen in Table 10.2, there are signicant dierences
across states in estimated per-student revenue expenditure
ranging from as low as Rs. 14,228 in Madhya Pradesh in FY
2015-16 to Rs. 22,087 in Karnataka. Interestingly whilst per-
student revenue expenditure increased by 10% in Madhya
Pradesh from Rs. 12,939 in FY 2014-15 to Rs. 14,228 in FY
2015-16, it has actually decreased in Rajasthan by 12% from
Rs. 20,344 to Rs. 17,820.
ere aren’t signicant dierences in estimated per-student
revenue expenditure including and excluding expenditure
incurred on non-government schools. However, also
excluding the other79 items specied above does result
in a signicant decrease in our estimated per-student
expenditure. For instance, whilst the estimated revenue
per-student expenditure in FY 2014-15 for Madhya Pradesh
stood at Rs. 12,939, this decreases to Rs. 11,411 excluding
the expenditure incurred on non-government schools and
“other” items. Similarly, in Rajasthan, whilst estimated
per-student recurring expenditure is over Rs. 20,000, this
decreases to Rs. 18,210. (Table 10.2).
e pattern continues in FY 2015-16. For instance, in
Karnataka estimated per-student revenue expenditure
including and excluding ‘others’ decreases from over Rs.
22,000 to Rs. 17,978.
In the subsequent discussion, we will only report
expenditure excluding expenditure incurred on non-
government schools and ‘other’ expenditure, unless
otherwise specied.
[77] See section 12 of GOI Notication dated 8th April 2010 http://mhrd.gov.in/
sites/upload_les/mhrd/les/upload_document/RTI1.pdf
[78] e miscellaneous expenditure includes expenditure which did not clearly
state what it pertains to. For instance, grants in aid for tribal sub-plan.
However, the proportions are small and thus would not make a signicant
dierence to the calculations.
[79] Others refers to MDM, distance education, adult education, activities for
out of school children, informal education, direction and administration,
inspection and seemingly capital expenditure.
Table 10.2: Estimated per-student revenue expenditure
State Estimated
per-student
revenue
expenditure
in FY 2014-15
Estimated
per-student
revenue
expenditure
(excluding
non-govt) in
FY 2014-15
Estimated
per-student evenue
expenditure
(excluding non-
government and
others) in FY
2014-15
Estimated
per-student
revenue
expenditure in
FY 2015-16
Estimated
per-student
revenue
expenditure
(excluding
non-govt) in
FY 2015-16
Estimated
per-student revenue
expenditure
(excluding
non-government
and others) in
2015-16
Gujarat NA NA NA 20029 19945 18113
Karnataka NA NA NA 22087 21532 17978
Rajasthan 20344 20037 18210 17820 17515 15388
Madhya Pradesh 12939 12641 11411 14228 13733 12279
Source: Calculated from state budget documents. For Gujarat and Karnataka calculations for FY 2014-15 were not carried out. Whilst states may have their own system to
collect enrolment numbers, we have used DISE State Report Cards 2014 for enrolment in 2014 and DISE State Report Cards 2015 for enrolment in 2015
A comparison of the estimated per-student revenue expenditure with the notied per-student costs too indicate signicant
variation (Table 10.3).
Table 10.3: Comparison of notified costs and estimated per-student expenditures
State Notied per-student costs
for academic year 2015-16
based on expenditure
incurred in FY 2014-15
Estimated per-student
revenue expenditure
(excluding non-govt and
“others”) in FY 2014-15
Notied per-student costs
for academic year 2016-17
based on expenditure
incurred in FY 2015-16
Estimated per-student
revenue expenditure
(excluding non-govt and
“others”) in FY 2015-16
Rajasthan 17732 18210 15029 15388
Karnataka 11848 NA 11848 17,978
Madhya Pradesh 4209 11411 462981 12279
Gujarat 10000 NA 13000 18113
Source: Calculated from state budget documents.
e dierence in the notied cost and the estimated per-
student expenditure excluding “others” is less than Rs. 500
in Rajasthan. In contrast, there is still a signicant dierence
in case of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka81, and Gujarat. e
primary reason for the lower dierence in Rajasthan is
due to more than 90 percent of expenditure incurred on
elementary education being for teacher salaries82. For the
other states however, the lack of a dened methodology
makes it dicult to know exactly what state governments
are including in their calculations and the reasons for these
dierences. What is however clear is that relatively fewer
expenditure items are included in the State calculations
compared to our calculations.
MISMATCH BETWEEN ACTUAL REIMBURSEMENT
AND NOTIFIED PERSTUDENT COSTS
Next, we compare actual reimbursement per-student with
the notied per-student costs. Actual reimbursement
per student is total expenditure actually incurred on
reimbursements divided by cumulative number of children
enrolled through 12(1)(c). Unfortunately, information on
the latter has been dicult to obtain for most states. Further,
using reimbursement expenditure for a particular nancial
year as reported in the budget document is problematic
since it may include reimbursement expenditure pertaining
to previous nancial years83. Hence, we look at the
‘approved’ number of children for which reimbursement
is given along with the total reimbursement amount under
SSA. For most other states, there was a dierence of nearly
Rs. 4,000 between unit costs proposed and reimbursed
amount per approved student admitted. Interestingly, we
nd no gap in Gujarat as the state has been reimbursing the
notied amount per-student to every private school that has
admitted students under 12(1)(c) irrespective of actual fees
charged by the private school! (Table 10.4)
[80] Collected from education ocial in Madhya Pradesh.
[81] In a recent judgement, Karnataka government has announced that the
notied costs will be increased to Rs. 16,000, from academic year 2017-18,
bringing it closer to our calculations. See http://timesondia.indiatimes.
com/city/bengaluru/fee-reimbursement-under-rte-increased-for-private-
schools-govt-tells-karnataka-hc/articleshow/57433353.cms
[82] Accountability Initiative (2014), PAISA District Study: Rajasthan. Available
online at: http://accountabilityindia.in/paisa/study/download/163
[83] For instance, the Project Approval Board (PAB) minutes under SSA for
Odisha in 2016-17 include approvals of Rs. 24.45 lakh for 2014-15 for 610
children in addition to approval for 2015-16.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 73
REIMBURSEMENT AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL
RECURRING EXPENDITURE
Concerns have been expressed about the quantum of
resources required for reimbursement to private schools
and adverse consequences it would have on the resources
available for government schools. Complete analysis would
entail projecting cumulative number of kids entering private
schools through 12(1)(c), the trajectory of per-student
expenditure on government schools as well as that of fees
charged by private schools for the next few years. is is
beyond the scope of this chapter. We have thus looked at the
proportion of actual reimbursements to the total revenue
expenditure on elementary education in select states.
As indicated in Table 10.5, the share of expenditure on
12(1)(c) in overall expenditure on elementary education
is currently low. In Gujarat for instance, less than 0.5%
of the total revenue expenditure in FY 2015-16 was for
reimbursement. In Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh it was
1.31% and 1.57%, respectively. In contrast, it’s nearly double
in Karnataka at 2.4%.
Table 10.5: Proportion of reimbursement out of
total revenue expenditure
State % EWS
reimbursement out
of total revenue
expenditure in FY
2014-15
% EWS
reimbursement out
of total revenue
expenditure in FY
2015-16
Gujarat NA 0.42%
Karnataka NA 2.40%
Rajasthan 1.06% 1.31%
Madhya Pradesh 1.33% 1.57%
Source: Authors calculations from State budget documents [84] e Hindu, April 6, 2017. Available online at: http://www.thehindu.
com/news/national/karnataka/rte-admissions-only-50-schools-receive-
maximum-fee-reimbursement/article17856461.ece
Table 10.4: Dierences between per-student reimbursement and notified per student costs
State Notied costs for
academic year
2014-15
(1)
No. of children in
academic year in
2014-15
(approved by GOI)
(2)
Approved amount
in Rs. Lakhs in
FY 2015-16 for
academic year
2014-15
(3)
Per-Student
reimbursement
amount (Amount
in lakhs divided by
Number of children
approved) (4=3/2)
Di between
notied cost
and calculated
per-student
(5=1-4)
Chhattisgarh 7,650 81316 3,065 3,769 3881
Gujarat 10,000 13033 1,303 10,000 0
Karnataka 11,848 155378 12,355 7,952 3896
Odisha 9,184 310 15 4,876 4308
Rajasthan 14,141 189083 4,171 2,206 11935
Uttar Pradesh 5,400 108 5 4,872 528
Uttarakhand 18,311 65889 4,150 6,300 12011
Source: Authors calculations from information taken from Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 311, Answered on 21st December 2015. Note: Figures are for Primary sections
and do not include Pre-Primary. Numbers have been rounded o.
DISCUSSION
What do dierences in notied per-student costs and
estimated per student expenditure indicate? As mentioned,
it indicates that the states have excluded certain expenditure
items. But what these items are and why they have been
excluded is indicate the need for clearer norms and
guidelines on which budget heads are to be included (and
excluded) from the calculation and a discussion these
inclusions or exclusions are justied
Dierences in the notied per-student costs and the
actual per-student reimbursement raises some important
questions with respect to characteristics of schools attended
by students through 12(1)(c). e RTE norm clearly states
that the reimbursement amount will be determined as
the lower of the actual school fees and the notied cost.
Actual reimbursement cost being lower than notied costs
could also indicate that fees of the majority of the private
schools are lower than notied costs. In fact, a report on
Karnataka had found that “[o]nly half of the 10,467 private
schools across Karnataka that received fee reimbursement
for admissions under the Right to Education (RTE) Act
quota were eligible for the maximum ceiling set by the State
government for the academic year 2016–1784.
e question this then raises is whether Section 12(1)(c)
is enabling parents to choose schools which they would
not have otherwise applied to or is it the case that they are
attending the same type of school that they would have
attended without 12(1)(c) but now don’t have to pay any
fees. And if it is more of the latter, can we say that objectives
of achieving inclusion and ensuring quality education are
being achieved? ere is currently no empirical evidence on
either and this needs urgent exploration.
Lastly, whilst the reimbursement as a proportion of total
recurring expenditure on elementary education is currently
low, it may increase in the future. Increased awareness
of the provision coupled with streamlining admission
processes can increase the number of students availing of
this provision. Moreover, the notied cost is also likely to
increase with increases in teacher salaries following the
implementation of the 7th Pay Commission and declining
enrolment in government schools. For instance, between
2014-15 and 2015-16, at an all India level, there was a
decline of 2 percent in enrolment to government schools.
(Table 10.6 below). is will imply increasing (actual)
reimbursement amount per student, and hence increasing
expenditure on 12(1)(c) in absolute and relative terms.
Table 10.6: Enrolment in government schools
2014-15 2015-16 Change in
Enrolment
Gujarat 5941473 58,16,280 -2%
Karnataka 4360499 42,49,264 -3%
Rajasthan 5940518 62,66,075 5%
Madhya
Pradesh
8715731 7979306 -8%
All India 118973934 11,69,21,077 -2%
Source: UDISE State Report Cards 2014 and 2015.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite 7 years since the passing of the RTE Act, it is clear
that there continue to be gaps in the implementation of
Section 12(1)(c). e objective of ensuring that the students
admitted through Section 12(1)(c) receive quality education
without discrimination will necessitate initiation of a
number of steps. Some of our specic recommendations
regarding reimbursement-related issues are as follows: -
1) Dening Methodology of calculating notied per
student costs
e rst most important step is to make publicly
available both the methodology for calculating the
notied per student cost as well as the actual unit
costs. Some states have taken steps towards forming
a committee consisting of experts in public nance
and education administration85. e rst task of this
committee should be to develop a robust methodology
for cost calculation and its regular updation. e same
should be put up for comments from the public.
2) Timely and Reliable Reimbursements
Whilst this chapter did not track the actual
reimbursement process, lack of timely and reliable
reimbursement has been a cause for concern and one
of the reasons for unaided schools’ unwillingness to
implement the provision. According to the amended
SSA Framework, for reimbursement claims, private
unaided schools complying with Section 12(1)(c)
are meant to submit their claim of reimbursement to
respective State Governments/UTs through the district
oce. ereaer, the State Governments/UTs reimburse
the expenditure incurred by private unaided schools.
As stated earlier, there is already a dierence between
the year on which the notied costs are calculated,
the academic year in which students are admitted and
the year in which reimbursements are made. State
governments in turn also only get reimbursed by
the Central government once they have incurred the
expenditure, on a reimbursement basis. Eorts should
be made to steamline the process by transferring funds
to the districts and schools on time.
3) Basing reimbursement on expenditure norm
As mentioned earlier, the per student expenditure
in government schools is likely to rise on account of
declining government school enrolment and increasing
cost of teacher salaries. Fluctuations on actual
expenditure due to a state’s scal health can also cause
uncertainty in per-student expenditures. Further, actual
expenditure has a two-year lag which can result in an
over or under estimation of the per student expenditure.
In this context, it may be more useful to have norm
based reimbursement which will not uctuate due to
uctuations in enrollments in government schools. e
previous State of the Nation Report gives an example
of how this could be calculated. It states, “as per the
RTE, there should be one teacher for 30 students in the
primary sections. From this, one can easily compute
per student salary expenditure norm. Unit costs have
already been specied for various entitlements such
as mid-day meal, uniforms, textbooks etc., either at
the state or central level. is allows computation of
per-student recurring expenditure norm86.” While
it may be argued that high Pupil Teacher Ratio in
government schools in some states may bias this norm,
a dierent approach in those cases can be adopted. In
these cases, the government could compute an average
salary expenditure per teacher to compute per-student
recurring expenditure.
[85] See State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c), March 2015 for details on
states which have set up committees.
[86] State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c), March 2015 State of the Nation:
RTE Section 12(1)(c), March 2015
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 75
4) Increased Transparency in Private School Fees
ere is currently limited information on the actual
fees charged by private schools and concerns have been
raised on the hidden costs and signicant year on year
increases. Given that the reimbursement amount is the
lower of the notied cost and actual fees charged by
private schools, it would be useful to have information
on the actual fees charged by private schools. Steps in
this direction are already being taken. Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh have initiated systematic collection of
such data. Gujarat has also initiated regulation of fees of
private schools and has made it mandatory for private
schools to submit their proposals to the Fee Regulatory
Committee in case they want to charge a fee higher than
stipulated by the Act87. e Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE) is also currently in the process of
collecting data on fees charged by private schools88. is
information should also be made publicly available to
ensure informed school choice for all parents (not just
12(1)(c)) for increased transparency.
5) Regular Measurement of Learning Outcomes for both
Public and Private Schools
A related recommendation is with respect to measuring
the quality of education provided across both
government and private schools. A major objective of
Section 12(1)(c) in addition to fostering inclusion was
ensuring access to quality education. However, currently
there is no information on the quality of private schools
[87] http://gujarat-education.gov.in/education/images/GOG_
GAZETTE_27042017.pdf
[88] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cbse-asks-private-schools-for-
data-on-fee-structure-to-curb-overcharging/article18718008.ece
[89] http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_les/mhrd/les/upload_document/RTE_
Amendment_2017.pdf
which are admitting students under this section.
While the National Council of Education Research
and Technology (NCERT) conducts the National
Achievement Surveys (NAS) in government schools, the
only source of learning outcomes in private schools is
the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER). ese
however are limited to rural schools.
e amendment of Rule 23 (2) announced through a
gazette notication on February 20, 2017 to include
learning outcomes is an important step in the right
direction. According to the notication, the academic
authority must “prepare class-wise, subject-wise
learning outcomes for all elementary classes and
prepare guidelines for putting into practice continuous
and comprehensive evaluation, to achieve the dened
learning outcomes89”. Accordingly, NCERT will conduct
a nation-wide national assessment in both public and
private schools to measure learning outcomes. is
initiative should be continued on a regular basis to
ensure movement towards improved learning outcomes.
In addition to making raw data and overall results
public, results should be disaggregated to also give
learning outcomes for students enrolled in government
schools, aided schools and unaided schools, and
separately for those who are enrolled through 12(1)(c)
or otherwise. is will tell us how well the academic
performance of children admitted through 12(1)(c)
compare with the rest.
CHAPTER 11:
A QUICK PEEK INTO
REIMBURSEMENT DATA
Neil Maheshwari, Shrikant Wad, Ambrish Dongre, Ankur Sarin
is chapter briey summarises data on reimbursements
directed towards private unaided schools under 12(1)(c)
of the Right to Education (RTE) in various States across
India. Unlike the earlier reports, we do not use the
admission data from DISE (District Information System
for Education) database, because of several issues with
consistency and reliability of the data90. We nd that many
of the shortcomings in data, outlined in earlier reports,
still remain unaddressed. Instead, we follow the money,
and compile enrolment/ reimbursement gures from the
minutes of the Project Approval Board (PAB) meetings
and online admission portals of certain States. e PAB is
a group of nominated ocials appointed by the Ministry
of Human Resource Development (MHRD) for a specied
tenure to work on a xed set of development areas. ey
take decisions regarding disbursal of funds, development,
and closure of works within their projects. In this report, we
refer to PABs under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (SSA), a
scheme initiated in 2000-2001 by the Government of India
in partnership with State governments for universalising
elementary education.
e 12(1)(c) specic data from the PAB minutes has
been compiled in Table 11.1. e PABs have made
recommendations for disbursal of funds in nancial year
2017-18. e State/UT (Union Territory) governments
submitted their proposals for funds to the SSA PABs. e
PABs appraised these proposals, and made appropriate
recommendations. ey relied on estimates or actual gures
of admissions under 12(1)(c) in the academic year 2016-17.
While reading this data, it should be noted that the ‘total
amount’ indicates the amount recommended by PAB to be
paid to the State/ UT Government. It is not necessarily the
total amount of reimbursement for all admissions in 2016-
17. It may include previous instalments as well. Additionally,
it is not always possible to estimate the per child cost from
the ‘total amount’ and ‘number of children’. is is because
the PAB minutes only mention the Centre’s share in total
expenditure. e State might have to add more funds
depending on its previous dues or savings. Overall, the data
compiled from the PAB points to 12(1)(c) implementation
in the State/ UT regions.
[90] Please see Part B of Chapter 2 in the State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)
(c) 2016 report.
Table 11.1 : Reimbursement against implementation of 12(1)(c) in AY 2016-17
State Payment recommended for FY
2017-18
Per Child Cost for AY
2016-17
Number of children for
whom the payment is
recommended
Total amount
Chhattisgarh Proposal approved in principle.
State asked to submit more
details.
Not notied 167044 NA
Delhi Proposal approved in principle.
State asked to submit more
details.
Not notied 38336 NA (i.e. Not applicable/
No information)
Gujarat Not approved for lack of
necessary documents, pending
payments to private schools
Not notied NA Estimated expenditure
1134.35L
Jharkhand Proposal approved in principle,
subject to submission of
appropriate documents
Not notied 13263 INR 100,000,000
Karnataka Proposal approved in principle.
State asked to submit more
details.
Not notied 242759 NA
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 77
Table 11.1 : Reimbursement against implementation of 12(1)(c) in AY 2016-17
State Payment recommended for FY
2017-18
Per Child Cost for AY
2016-17
Number of children for
whom the payment is
recommended
Total amount
Madhya Pradesh Approved Not mentioned in PAB
minutes
Not mentioned in PAB
minutes
INR 1,491,960,000
Maharashtra Approved Not mentioned in PAB
minutes
Not mentioned in PAB
minutes
INR 140,000,000
Odisha Approved INR 6,269.64 560 INR 3,511,000
Rajasthan Approved (per child cost
includes 150 per child for
textbooks)
INR 15,029 Not mentioned in PAB
minutes
INR 1,245,341,200
Tamil Nadu Incomplete proposal was
submitted by the State/ UT. A
revised proposal is awaited.
NA NA NA
Uttar Pradesh Not recommended aer
appraisal (no reason cited in the
minutes)
Not notied NA NA
Uttarakhand Approved Not mentioned in PAB
minutes
Not mentioned in PAB
minutes
INR 395,042,000
Andhra Pradesh
Meghalaya
Tripura
No admission Not notied NA NA
Andaman and
Nicobar Islands
Bihar
Proposal not recommended,
because the State/UT
Government has not
reimbursed the private, unaided
schools.
Not notied NA NA
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Chandigarh
Dadra & Nagar
Haveli
Daman & Diu
Goa
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Manipur
Mizoram
Nagaland
Puducherry
Punjab
Sikkim
Telangana
West Bengal
e State/ UT did not submit a
proposal.
NA NA NA
Source: PAB minutes: SSA ShaGun, Department of School Education & Literacy. Accessed 15 July, 2017. http://ssashagun.nic.in/pab1718.html
REGIONS WITH NO REIMBURSEMENT
Out of the thirty-six States and Union Territories (UTs) in
India, most have not submitted an appropriate proposal for
reimbursement, according to the 2017-18 PAB minutes. e
long list of these regions, shown in Table 11.1, points to the
failure of majority of States/UTs in obtaining the necessary
funds from the Centre for implementation of the mandate.
It might also be possible that these States/ UTs have no
reportable admission in private unaided schools under RTE
12(1)(c). For three regions viz. Andhra Pradesh, Meghalaya,
and Tripura, the PAB minutes transparently mention that
there is no admission under 12(1)(c). For other regions, it is
likely that the mandate has not been implemented. However,
the PAB minutes do not clarify on the same.
TWELVE STATE/UTS WITH REPORTABLE
ADMISSIONS:
ere are only twelve State/UT governments that have
reportedly been reimbursed or considered positively for
reimbursement for claimed admissions under RTE 12(1)
(c) to private unaided schools. is information is obtained
based on the States mentioned in the PAB minutes, and
respective education department websites. Out of the eleven
States, the proposals by Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar
Pradesh have been unsuccessful. Nonetheless, they indicate
that the mandate has been implemented, and there have
been certain number of admissions. Also, except in Odisha
and Uttarakhand, the online implementation of 12(1)
(c) is being followed or recently initiated in these States.
is report has discussed various aspects of the admission
processes in these States in earlier chapters.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 79
CHAPTER 12:
SUGGESTIONS FOR
ENHANCING EFFECTIVENESS
OF IMPLEMENTATION
Drawing on the research that has been conducted for this
report, we suggest the specic recommendations that we
believe would improve the implementation of the mandate
under Section 12(1)c of the RTE.
1. Clarity and enforcement
1.1. e rules regarding entry-age, entry-class, and
eligibility criteria should be clear and consistent
throughout the admission process. Use of
ambiguous language in stating the rules, or
multiple notications announcing the changes in
the rules have created hurdles for applicants as well
as the schools.
1.2. All schools with pre-primary classes should be
mandated to accept admission at pre-primary
as well as grade 1 level. Rather, within the pre-
primary, admissions should be separately opened
for nursery, kindergarten 1, and kindergarten 2.
is can increase the visibility of vacant seats.
1.3. Neighbourhood: e use of GPS or ward/village
to dene neighbourhood is cumbersome for
implementation. While GPS positioning creates
access issues and technological challenges, the
ward/village denitions rely on population,
making the geographic division dicult. It is
suggested that the neighbourhood should be
dened using fresh geographic divisions. ese
divisions should be marked based on pin-code,
ward/village, and locality names collectively; the
mapping should account for contextual diculties
such as terrain and transport.
1.4. e free entitlements for 12(1)(c) including
writing material, textbooks, uniforms, shoes,
cultural activities, transport, eld-trips etc.
should be explicitly mentioned on the website,
and communicated on the candidate’s’ admission
form. Government should release claricatory
notications that all the 12(1)(c) children are
entitled to all the facilities and activities in the
school without paying any fee.
1.5. All unaided schools should be notied of the
reimbursement amount, and the methodology of
calculating those reimbursements. e notication
should be sent before the admission process
begins.
1.6. All reimbursements should be announced with a
date for disbursal of funds. ey should be paid
regularly, and in full as announced.
1.7. e private school fees and the utilisation of
funds should be made public. e school accounts
should be transparent, and accessible to all
stakeholders for obtaining relevant information.
1.8. It has been observed that district-level
implementation of the admission process adds
to the administrative convenience. Depending
on the context, the admission process should be
decentralised to districts. is may help accelerate
the overall schedule of activities.
2. Schedule of activities
2.1. e application window should be open earlier
than it currently does. At the least, it is necessary
that the admission of RTE 12(1)(c) applicants
is synchronised with that of the other students.
Because of delay in admission process, the RTE
12(1)(c) children face academic loss. Also, parents,
waiting for the lottery results, are forced into
a dilemma of opting for a paid seat in unaided
schools.
2.2. All schools should be mandated to defer other
admissions until the RTE 12(1)(c) admission cycle
is over. e schools should also be prohibited from
charging fees or conrming admission to any
candidate, whether under 12(1)(c) or not, until the
RTE 12(1)(c) admission cycle is over.
3. School proles
3.1. All processes from enrolment to reimbursement
should be integrated on the portal. Using a simple
login, schools as well as applicants should be able
to verify and update their details. is is important
for administrative convenience and eciency.
3.2. All unaided schools should be registered on the
portal, irrespective of DISE code or minority
status. e minority schools should be included
so that they have an option to partake voluntarily.
eir admission data before obtaining the
minority certicate can be maintained. Also, the
requirement of DISE code should not prevent a
recognised school from being registered on the
portal.
3.3. Up-to-date and comprehensive school prole
should be created on the portal and made public.
It should be accessible on the website throughout
the year. Schools should be able to edit their prole
until the portal opens for admissions. All editing
requests should be veried and approved by
respective BEOs. A comprehensive school prole
should include details such as recognition status
and board aliation, school’s intake capacity and
enrolment, address with identied neighbourhood,
school fee, bank account details, and annual
expenditure.
3.4. A map of school’s neighbourhood should be
publicised. A map of school’s neighbourhood
region should be displayed on school’s website,
notice boards, and the online prole. Any
discrepancy should be redressed by BEOs and
higher authorities.
3.5. Schools should be notied to recheck or update
their proles on the portal at least three months
before the application process begins. For
example, for admission in April or June 2019, the
application registration should begin by November
2018. Implying, the school update should begin
in August 2018. e delays in school prole
update cause further delays in application and
admission, ultimately resulting into academic loss
for children, and limited time for parents to gather
resources.
4. Awareness campaigns
4.1. e awareness campaigns should have oine
mode including pamphlet distribution, and
community meetings in slum and rural areas. e
campaigns should explicitly inform people about
how to submit a 12(1)(c) application, how to track
it, and how to obtain the redressal of grievances.
4.2. As part of the campaign, a school catalogue
should be available for parents to know about local
schools without going to the website. Currently,
the online forms accessible to parents do not
provide any details except school name, location,
and medium of instruction.
4.3. Local NGOs, Anganwadi workers, and ward
councillors should be engaged in the campaign to
generate awareness amongst potential applicants,
assist them in form-ling, and track their
admission status.
5. Mode of application
5.1. Oine as well as online alternatives should be
available for submitting the applications. One
should be able to submit their application without
the use of internet or mobile phone. ere should
be enough assistance from government to accept
plain-paper applications, and process them along
with other online or oine submissions.
5.2. e documents corroborating candidate’s eligibility
should be veried before their registration. is
process should be available oine as well as
online for scanned documents. Candidates- who
successfully submit all the required documents,
should be marked as ‘veried applicants’. Post
lottery allotment, they should not be denied
admission based on the grounds of inadequate
documentation. Schools should admit all the
‘veried applicants’ aer allotment.
5.3. It should not be mandatory that only the child’s
parent submit their application. Grandparents and
other caregivers should be allowed to submit the
forms.
5.4. Dependency on mobile phones should be
removed, as many parents lack mobile phone
access. Parents should be able to le and follow-
up on application by visiting a local help-centre
or school, asking for their name, or checking the
notice boards. Also, messaging as well as IVRS
(interactive voice response) in local language
should be employed, wherever mobile phones are
being used.
6. Help-centre
6.1. ere should be an RTE cell or help-centre
in every locality for immediate redressal of
grievances. A helpline should be linked to such
centres for quick redressal.
6.2. e help-centres should be open on weekends
and public holidays to provide access to parents,
who cannot visit on weekdays, or might have to
sacrice their day’s work for the same. ey should
be open for the entire duration of working hours.
6.3. e sta in help-centres should be well-informed
and responsive. ey should receive training to
address various queries. ey should be procient
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 81
in using computers for submitting the forms.
e sta should be familiar with local NGOs and
volunteers working on RTE.
6.4. e help-centres should accept forms in oine
as well as online mode. Applications should be
able to approach these centres, enquire about the
admission process, and submit the forms at the
counter. For those who cannot write, the centre
should provide aid.
6.5. All help-centres should have electricity, internet
connection, computers, printers, and air-cooling
facilities. For this purpose, local computer
coaching centres, school or colleges with ICT
facilities, and BRC oces may be utilised.
6.6. e help-centres should be open throughout the
year, especially aer the allotments. One should be
able to know the allotment result by simply visiting
a help-centre. e centre’s sta should address
parents’ queries, and provide immediate redressals.
7. Website and communication
7.1. All visitors to the website should be able to easily
access the list of schools in their neighbourhood.
is will be particularly helpful for NGO workers
assisting the applicants.
7.2. e application website should be search engine
optimised (SEO), and equipped to handle heavy
trac. It should appear amongst the top search
results for RTE 12(1)(c) admissions in Gujarat.
7.3. Simple YouTube videos in local language
demonstrating school registration and application
submission procedures should be posted on the
website’s home page. ey should be regularly
updated.
7.4. Post-lottery, every applicant should receive at least
two SMS messages stating the outcome of their
application. In addition to the local language,
messages in English should also be sent to avoid
font compatibility issues.
7.5. Along with SMS, the result notication should be
sent through mass media and social networks.
7.6. In case of non-allotment, the result should
mention ‘considered for next round’, as applicable.
Use of negative words such as ‘rejected’ or
‘unsuccessful’ misleads the applicants. ey need
to be informed that they will be considered in
further rounds.
7.7. Need for a fully functional helpline: Multiple
telephone helplines providing up-to-date
information should be active throughout the day
for schools, applicants, and departmental sta who
might need clarications. e attendants at these
helplines must have clarity on all updates regarding
12(1)(c) admissions.
8. Post-allotment
8.1. If an applicant, whose eligibility documents have
been successfully veried before the application,
is found with a lack of those documents aer
allotment, then the allotment should not be
cancelled. is should be followed for candidates,
whose applications may be found invalid
despite earlier verication. e responsibility
for producing the right documents should lie
with the parents only before the application. If
the documents are later found to be invalid or
inadequate, necessary remedial measures should
be taken. However, the child should not be denied
admission.
8.2. e help-centres should work as rst-point-contact
for school administrators as well. e school sta
should be able to call or visit the centre, and get
their queries resolved.
8.3. School administrators should be trained, and
sensitised towards RTE 12(1)(c) admissions.
Adequate support along with training, and quick
query redressals should be provided by the local
oces of the Department for fast and accurate
registration of admitted children.
8.4. All schools should be rated based on their
responsiveness to the 12(1)(c) application process.
If a school refuses to cooperate for admission, or
exercises unreasonable discretion to reject the
applicants, then it should be ned and warned of
further punitive actions.
CHAPTER 13:
CONCLUSION :
DEEPENING ROOTS
e policy journey of Section 12(1)c is well under way, with
the “25 percent mandate” nding its way into the cultural
and social life of the country. For a policy to nd itself at
the centre of a popular lm (“Hindi Medium”), is as strong
an evidence as one can hope to nd, of a policy deepening
its roots. Armation for the policy has also come in the
form of Report of the Committee for Evolution of the New
Education Policy91. e committee states its support for
the mandate emphatically, and asserts that the 12(1)(c)
clause is ‘designed to conform to the spirit of a common
curriculum and a common school system’. Identifying
inclusive education as ‘a signicant social objective’, the
committee calls upon Union and State governments to
resolve operational problems, and implement the provision
in a smooth manner. Moreover, the report recommends
expansion of the mandate. It suggests that ‘the larger
national obligations to meet the rights of economic
weaker sections should extend to all institutions including
minority (religious and linguistic) institutions’. e
increased visibility and assertions in support of the 12(1)(c)
clause underscore its rising signicance in policy debates
surrounding inclusive education.
In this context, it is crucial that dierent stakeholders of the
policy actively engage with its discourse, and act to further
its objectives. As an instrument challenging the inequalities
in access to education, the 12(1)(c) clause is bound to create
tensions. e gradual development in its implementation
over 8 years since the enactment stands as an evidence to
the systemic and social diculties it faces. Nonetheless,
there is a progress on many fronts over the last few years.
New institutional arrangements in the form of e-governance
initiatives and centralised admission systems are being
created distinctly to facilitate the implementation of 12(1)(c)
clause. ese eorts of the government are supplemented
by active participation of civil society organisations, and
benevolent support of the judiciary. ere is also a palpable
rise in school participation. Against the backdrop of
these developments, we conclude the report by reiterating
several themes that have arisen in the report, and those
that need attention for the policy to deepen its roots, and
achieve its intended objectives. We call upon government
ocials, judiciary, and private stakeholders for their active
participation in this regard.
LACK OF CLARITY ON IMPLEMENTATION IN
MOST STATES
Issue of inconsistency that continue to characterise DISE
data mean that we do not have any reliable admissions data
to assess the actual implementation of the mandate. As
an earlier chapter points out, less than half the States have
actually received funding from the centre to reimburse
schools, and pay for uniforms and books (depending on
State rules) under the mandate. If this is an indication
of actual implementation, then it paints a very poor
picture of the other States. Either the other States have
not implemented the mandate at all, or failed to do so in
a manner that allow them to fund the mandate as per its
rules. is either reects a failure to fulll a constitutional
obligation, or poor governance, neither of which should be
excusable.
ATTENTION TO EGOVERNANCE IN MANY
STATES
An important theme that has emerged from this year’s
report is the signicant eort made by many States
to systemise the admissionss process using tools of
e-governance. e tools have also aided several State
governments in coming up with thoughtful alternatives
to determine the process of allocating available seats to
applicants based on their preferences. We have discussed
some of these in earlier chapters, and we hope that those
responsible for determining these will nd the report useful
in learning from other States. e e-governance systems
in place and the allocation algorithms in many ways point
to the potential of governments - which are otherwise
maligned - to be innovative and responsive in their service
delivery. We hope that ocials across the country will learn
from the thoughtful attention to details that their colleagues
in other States have demonstrated on the mandate. We
also hope that the implementation process continues to
improve in those States, which have shown leadership in
implementing the mandate.
While we strongly believe that the utilisation of technology
has the potential to reduce administrative burden, and
improve citizen’s experience of the mandate, there is a
compelling need to supplement the eorts by aiding citizens
to negotiate the technology. According to the 2011 census,
merely 3% households have access to internet on computer.
e proportion of mobile internet users is as low as 28%,
[91] Subramanian, TSR. 2016. Report of the Committee for Evolution of the
New Education Policy. Report on National Policy on Education 2016,
MHRD, New Delhi: Government of India. Accessed May 31, 2017. http://
www.nuepa.org/new/download/NEP2016/ReportNEP.pdf.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 83
which also includes persons with multiple connections92.
e highly sophisticated tools of online portals while
easier to administratively implement, can also be unt and
intimidating for the target population that belongs to the
most disadvantaged sections. Leaving the task of providing
help to unregulated private operators runs the risk of either
corruption, or reinforcing the very forms of exclusion that
the mandate is supposed to help overcome. Further, reach of
non-governmental organizations is limited.
We strongly recommended that governments eliminate
the barriers of technology and literacy in the application
process. And till that time, they continue to use oine,
community-based alternatives in parallel. e awareness
campaigns need to reach beyond internet and newspapers.
Given the targeted segment, they need to use channels
of radio, panchayat announcements, and community
centres. While spreading awareness, people need to be
informed about specic application requirements and ways
to full them. One should be able to submit a plain paper
application at any panchayat or ward oce, with adequate
documentation. ese oces need to provide assistance to
those who cannot read or write. For the applicants, there
needs to be responsive and resourceful help-centres within
reachable boundaries; the centres should provide start to
end assistance from application stage to admission, as well
as post admission. is calls for considerable investment by
the government in sta as well as other resources.
SUPPORTIVE JUDICIARY
e mandate has benetted from strong support by the
judiciary. As the chapter by Vidhi Legal points out, courts
have taken a strong view on the desirability of the mandate,
and to ensure that it implemented both in spirit and
the letter. e courts continue to resist eorts to dene
eligibility criteria that will undermine the spirit of the law.
However, as we have pointed out in earlier reports, we hope
the courts would revisit the issue of exemption of minority
schools from the mandate. Although public information
to verify this remains unavailable, there are sucient
anecdotal accounts on how the exemption is being (mis)
used by schools (especially many of those catering to the
elite) to escape the mandate. We hope the courts would
take cognizance of this. Further, we hope that the courts
take cognizance of the potential non-implementation of
the mandate in several States. In this regard, recent Delhi
High Court directives93 to the Municipal Corporations
for implementation of the mandate along with sharing of
relevant data in the public domain is a step in the direction
we hope other courts will take as well.
CALL TO CIVIL SOCIETY AND FOR GREATER
POLITICAL MOBILIZATION
As the report highlights (oen in their own voice), the
signicant civil society eorts in many States have held the
state accountable for its obligations, and played an active
role in the implementation of the mandate. In doing so, they
have also fullled their own roles of working towards the
welfare of those neglected by the dominant institutions of
the state and the market.
We hope that that others will follow their steps, and take
advantage of the potential of leveraging on a rights based
framework to truly create public private partnerships that
work for the economically weaker and disadvantaged. We
strongly believe that supporting children, who are attending
schools via the mandate (and hence also supported by the
state), provides a highly impactful strategy for philanthropic
capital to not only leverage on the government’s eorts
to improve human capital, but also bring about systemic
change by demanding more of government systems.
e experience94 of working with ward-councillors in
Ahmedabad informs that political mobilisation can also
help in improving the implementation of 12(1)(c). Such
eorts should be increased. e department of education
needs to engage local political leaders and representatives
of marginalised communities in the policy implementation.
It may run awareness campaigns through these actors.
Also, simple and accessible application process needs to be
designed with people’s participation.
CALL TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS
e stakeholder who is ultimately responsible for, and
determines the nature of implementation of the mandate,
are private schools. During our eld visits and eld work, we
have heard instances of many schools arbitrarily rejecting
the applicants, or charging hey non-tuition fees from those
admitted. We are told that in some cities, the schools and
parents of the privileged groups have formed independent
associations, which now lobby against the bureaucratic
pressure to implement the mandate. Our report does not
adequately cover the status and nature of their engagement
with the mandate. We recognize this limitation. However,
this limitation largely stems from the reluctance of most
schools to share information and provide us access. ere
are some exceptions that other reports95 including ours
have highlighted in the past. e reluctance of most schools
to be open and transparent has implied an inability to
systematically study the issues they face. We hope that over
time this reluctance will diminish. ere is no arguing that
[92] Krishnan, Aarati. 2017. “How many Indians have Internet? .” The Hindu.
March 26. Accessed June 15, 2017. http://www.thehindu.com/business/
how-many-indians-have-internet/article17668272.ece
[93] See Anurag Kundu & Ors vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
2017. 12018 (Delhi High Court, May 1).
[94] See chapter 5 for a similar Ahmedabad-based experience.
[95] Indus Action. 2014. Making Social Inclusion Possible within private unaided
non-minority schools under Section 12(1)(c) of RTE. New Delhi: Indus
Action. Accessed May 31, 2017. http://www.indusaction.org/publications.
the implementation of the mandate is far from perfect, but
this is a task that private schools will have to nd a way to
engage in. To be a violator of the law, cannot be a position
from which any school can hope to educate any children.
We hope school leadership - academic and administrative,
will see in the mandate, an opportunity to repay the
trust that society has placed in them in creating the next
generation for a more just and democratic society.
State of the Nation: RTE Section 12(1)(c) – 2017 | 85
Annexure 1: Reference: Chapter 8: Lottery Logic in the Four States
ANNEXURE
MAHARASHTRA LOTTERY WITH EXAMPLE
All applicants within 1km radius of a school are considered
rst. e neighbourhood is recorded in the application
form, when it is submitted online. Step 1 to 6 are followed
for such applicants.
1. e number of applications received by the most
preferred school is recorded, and the schools are sorted
based on number of preferences indicated for each.
a. If the total number of seats in a school is greater
than the number of children preferring it, then
all the preferences are converted into allotments.
Also, such school is automatically excluded from
further allotments. For example, Ganapat Vidya
Mandir has 45 seats and 40 applicants. en, all the
forty applicants are allotted a seat in Ganapat Vidya
Mandir. us, all the possible allotments to Ganapat
Vidya Mandir are exhausted and it no longer
requires to be considered in the lottery.
b. However, the applicants are considered for other
schools as well. at is, the forty children- who
have been allotted Ganapat Vidya Mandir, will be
considered for other schools.
2. Generation of random numbers:
a. e lottery set-up for allotment to schools with
excess demand consists of bowls with number
chits and a computer connected to internet. e
number of bowls is same as the number of digits
in the number of applications received by the most
preferred school. For example, if the maximum
number of applications received by any school is
484, then three bowls will be used, one each for
unit’s place (U), ten’s place (T), and the hundred’s
place (H). e U and T bowls would have 10 chits
with digits 0 to 9 written on them. e H bowl
would have number chits numbered from 0 to 4 for
the case of 484.
b. To begin the randomisation, any person- preferably
a parent- is called to draw one chit from each of
the bowls to form a three-digit random number.
Suppose, table 13.1 shows the random sets formed
for the case of 484 maximum applicants per school.
When the chits in the bowl of hundred’s place are
over, the set is completed by assuming zero in its
place. us, the number sets are ten unique random
numbers. ese numbers decide the sequence in
which an applicant is considered for allotting a
school seat. ese ten numbers are fed into the
computer system and the allotment is initiated.
Table 13.1: Set of random numbers formed for
lottery (Example for Maharashtra system)
100’s Place 10’s Place Unit Place
492
079
181
316
254
007
030
023
045
068
3. For the schools that have more applicants than their
available seats (those le aer step 1a), an allotment
algorithm is followed.
a. All such schools are sorted in descending order of
number of applications per school.
b. Each school is considered separately. A list of
applicants per school, who reside within 1km
distance from the school, is prepared with their
application form numbers in order.
c. e list is rearranged with respect to the set of
unique random digits generated as per the process
described above.
d. For example: Adarsh Vidya Mandir has 65
applicants against its 50 vacancies. Since the number
of applicants exceeds the number of seats, the
algorithm will be followed. All 65 applicants will
be ordered according to their application numbers.
Now, since the vacancies are 50, the total capacity
of Adarsh Vidya Mandir, considering the 25%
reservation, is 200 seats. Beginning with zero, the
applications can be ordered up to 199. Hence, all the
applicants to Adarsh Vidya Mandir will be ordered
matching their application numbers successively
with the set shown in Table 13.2. Here, table 13.2 is
obtained from table 13.1 skipping the entries for 4,
3, and 2, as the highest digit at the hundred’s place
can be 0 or 1.
4. Using Table 13.2, all applications to Adarsh Vidya
Mandir are sequenced. For example, consider Makarand
and Rucha as potential applicants in order. Firstly,
Makarand’s application number, which is (supposedly)
before that of Rucha, will be matched with the unit place
digit 9 in table 13.2. If it matches, then Makarand will be
ordered up in the list. If it does not match, then Rucha’s
application will be matched for the same digit and so on.
Moving from 9, matches with 1, 7, 0, 3, 5, and 8 will be
made. Subsequently, a combination will be considered
using the digits in the ten’s place and hundred’s place. As
soon as a match is found, the application will be moved
up in the list.
Table 13.2: Example: Adarsh Vidya Mandir: Digit
Combinations as per Table 13.1
100’s Place 10’s Place Unit Place
079
181
007
030
023
045
068
5. Now, we have a list of applicants for Adarsh Vidya
Mandir. is list is randomly ordered according to step
2 and 3a. e rst 50 applicants from this list can ll the
50 vacancies of Adarsh Vidya Mandir, provided their
entry-level and entry-age matches. us, the vacancies
in Adarsh Vidya Mandir are lled.
6. Similarly, all school vacancies are lled beginning with
the school with most number of applications to the one
with the least number of applications.
Post this allotment, remaining school vacancies are
lled for the applicants residing within 1 to 3 km
distance from the school. e entire process is identical
except that the list of applicants per school consists of
applicants residing farther than those considered earlier.
Every applicant is considered in all the allotments as
many times possible.
RAJASTHAN LOTTERY WITH EXAMPLE
e lottery logic in Rajasthan can be understood from the
following illustration. Suppose, a candidate called Malkin
Bano in ward or village 31 has indicated preference for ten
schools (L School, Q School, Z School, Jankidevi School,
Joseph School, Vidyasagar School, Aabeda School, T
School, M School, D School- not in order). Suppose, L, Q,
Z, Aabeda and D are recorded in the database as the schools
located outside ward 31. en, the rst group will have
Jankidevi, Joseph, Vidyasagar, T and M, while others will be
in second group. Now, the ve preferences in group one will
receive a random priority number.
Suppose, in the randomisation, Jankidevi School has had
10 applicants before Malkin. en, Malkin will get priority
number 11 for Jankidevi. It might happen that Jankidevi
has only 9 vacancies. Still, the priority numbers 10, 11.. will
be assigned. us, the priority number is a function of the
demand for the school (every school preference has one
top applicant), but not of the number of seats in school (the
largest priority number for a school may not be same as its
vacancy, rather will depend on number of applicants to the
school).
Suppose, the result for Malkin is as follows: Jankidevi
School: 11, Joseph School: 1, Vidyasagar: 13, T: 21, and
M: 14. Now, the rst priority number in second group will
be generally higher, and allotted in the second phase. is
is because the priority numbers in the second group are
allotted only aer allotting those in the rst group. e
order may be something like: L: 109, Q: 116, Z: 18, Aabeda:
10, and D: 107. As it may be observed, Malkin has received
priority number 10 for Aabeda as against 14 for M and 11
for Jankidevi, which are both in Ward 31. Such cases may
happen, when a school has not been opted by many other
applicants. In this case, Aabeda School was not opted by
more than 10 applicants in the same ward, or by those
applicants in the neighbouring ward, who were randomly
considered before Malkin Bano.
e allotment of a priority number for each preference
stated by the applicant concludes the online lottery. Every
applicant receives an SMS in English mentioning that the
result is available online. ey are supposed to download the
allotment letter from the 12(1)(c) portal. e lottery result
for Malkin Bano will mention the following:
Malkin Bano’s prole details submitted online and
certicates that she should have in original
Period within which she should approach a school
(generally a week-long time)
A list of her preferred schools with priority order:
L: 109, Q: 116, Z: 18, Jankidevi: 11, Joseph: 1,
Vidyasagar: 13, Aabeda: 10, T: 21, M: 14, and D: 107.
is allotment concludes the lottery. Now, Malkin Bano
has a list of schools with priority number for each. She will
denitely get admission in Joseph School, if she fulls other
requirements of the process, which include approaching
the school within the stipulated time, and submitting
hard-copies of the original certicates corroborating her
eligibility. She might also get admission in other schools,
provided their intake capacity is high or other applicants
do not conrm their admission. For example, if Vidyasagar
school has a vacancy of 10, then Malkin Bano will not get
admission in Vidyasagar, unless at least three candidates
with higher priority number for Vidyasagar do not seek
admission there. Similarly, if the vacancy in school Z is 20,
then Malkin Bano will certainly receive an admission in Z
School, irrespective of other applicants.
