CBSE faults Ryan on se­cu­rity norms ‘Ex­plain Why You Shouldn’t Lose Af­fil­i­a­tion’

The Times of India (Mumbai edition) - - TIMES NATION - Manash.Go­hain @times­group.com

New Delhi: The Cen­tral Board of Sec­ondary Ed­u­ca­tion (CBSE) has in­dicted Ryan In­ter­na­tional School, Bhondsi (Gur­gaon), where a Class II stu­dent was mur­dered last week, for fail­ing to “ob­serve the ba­sic se­cu­rity mea­sures as stip­u­lated by the board”, which could’ve pre­vented the in­ci­dent. The board is­sued a show-cause no­tice to the school on Satur­day ask­ing “why [its] pro­vi­sional af­fil­i­a­tion for sec­ondary and se­nior sec­ondary level may not be with­drawn”. The board held the school re­spon­si­ble on seven counts in the no­tice, in­clud­ing wil­ful vi­o­la­tion of the pro­vi­sions of the af­fil­i­a­tion by­laws.

Based on the re­port of a two-mem­ber fact-find­ing com­mit­tee, which was set up on Septem­ber 9, a day af­ter the mur­der of seven-year-old Prad­hyumn Thakur in­side the school premises, CBSE stated that “the school has failed to dis- charge its re­spon­si­bil­ity to file the FIR and in­form the dis­trict ed­u­ca­tion of­fi­cer and CBSE…” and that “the FIR was sub­se­quently filed by the par­ent”.

Hold­ing the school squarely re­spon­si­ble for the in­ci­dent, the board said that from the en­tire se­quence of events, it ap­peared that the school was guilty of gross neg­li­gence and that it failed to en­sure the safety and se­cu­rity of stu­dents.

The fact-find­ing com­mit­tee com­prised Y Arun Ku­mar, deputy com­mis­sioner, Ken­driya Vidyalaya San­gathan, and Kailash Chand, prin­ci­pal, gov­ern­ment co-ed se­nior sec­ondary school, Preet Vi­har, who vis­ited the school cam­pus ear­lier week. In its re­port, the panel said the “un­for­tu­nate in­ci­dent… could have been averted had [the] school au­thor­i­ties dis­charged their duty and re­spon­si­bil­ity with care and sin­cer­ity”.

The re­port said that the win­dows of the toi­let where the boy was killed had no grilles and peo­ple could eas­ily ac­cess it from out­side. It also pointed out that there was no sep­a­rate pro­vi­sion for toi­lets/wash­room for driv­ers and con­duc­tors/clean­ers… de­spite the school en­gag­ing around 35 buses for trans­porta­tion of stu­dents and staff.

Elab­o­rat­ing on the gross neg­li­gence of se­cu­rity mea­sures, the re­port said: “No at­ten­dant/aaya was present at the toi­let of the small chil­dren. Had the school man­age­ment de­ployed at­ten­dant/aaya, this mishap would have been avoided.” The school man­age­ment has been asked to re­ply within 15 days.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.