School Faces Legal Scrutiny over Fee Dispute and Child Rights Violations

 Hyderabad: Vikas High School in Santoshnagar has come under intense legal scrutiny following a series of complaints and a court case filed by a parent, bringing to light significant lapses by its management and non-adherence to government orders.

Sultan Mahmood Ali, whose brother’s children are among the victims, alleges that the school detained students over unpaid Covid-19 fees, defying explicit government instructions meant to protect students during the pandemic.

The controversy erupted when Vikas High School refused to promote students for the academic year 2020-21 due to unpaid fees, despite GO No. 56, which mandated fee relaxation due to the financial hardships caused by the pandemic.

Mahmood Ali said "We faced a severe financial crisis during the pandemic, and my younger brother had to rush to India after an accident."

The family’s quest for justice began with a legal notice to the school management on November 30, 2021, demanding the promotion of the detained students as per government orders. When this went unheeded, a series of complaints were lodged and many platforms were approached, including the district education officer (DEO), the deputy inspector of schools, the district collector and National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), whose call for strict action against the school went in vain. The High Court’s directives to the DEO to take action within four weeks remains ignored.

The parent recounted, "Despite clear instructions from various authorities, the school continues to operate without accountability. Our children's education has been disrupted for years, and we seek justice not just for our family but for all facing similar issues."

In a twist, Vikas High School filed a counter case in 2023, alleging that the parents themselves had requested that the children be detained due to their inability to attend online classes. The school claimed that consent forms to detain the children were provided, although the parents had not signed any such forms.

Despite clear directives and calls for action over the years, the school management’s non-compliance has persisted.

The DEO’s preliminary inquiry indicated that the school did not maintain the required documents and recommended strict action, which was never implemented. Despite repeated requests for fee concessions and consideration during the pandemic, the school management offered only a 20 per cent concession and refused to promote the children, citing non-payment of the full school fee. The parent noted, "The concept of conducting online classes was a new experience for the school management,