Chandigarh UT EWS policy: Private Schools Left Bearing the Burden as UT Agrees to Partial Reimbursement for EWS Students

Chandigarh UT EWS policy: Chandigarh Administration to reimburse only 10% of the 25% EWS students’ expenses under RTE Act, leaving private schools to bear remaining costs. Know the policy shift and its real-world impact.

In a decision that has stirred debate across the education sector, the Chandigarh Administration has agreed to reimburse private, unaided schools for only a portion of the educational expenses incurred on students from the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). Under the 2009 Right to Education (RTE) Act, schools are mandated to reserve 25% seats for EWS and Disadvantaged Group (DG) students in the entry-level classes. However, in a recent order, the Union Territory administration has clarified that it will only reimburse expenses for 10% of this 25% quota—leaving private schools responsible for the remaining 15%.

This development, formalized through a 21-page speaking order issued by Director School Education (DSE) HPS Brar on April 21, is being seen as both a relief and a responsibility by stakeholders. The move also brings clarity to a long-pending matter before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Crux of the Decision

In the official order, Brar highlighted a “harmonious reading” of various legal provisions, including Section 12(C) of the RTE Act, Clause 18 of the 1996 Scheme, and a memo dated May 8, 2014, to justify the split reimbursement.

According to the order:

• Private unaided (non-minority) schools are required to admit 25% EWS/DG students at entry level under the RTE Act.
• Simultaneously, 15% seats are also mandated under the older Scheme of 1996 for all private schools, including minority institutions.

However, Brar pointed to the second proviso of Section 12(2) of the RTE Act, which restricts reimbursement to schools that have received land or other facilities at concessional rates. Thus, the UT administration has ruled that schools in Chandigarh can only claim reimbursement for 10% of students—as that proportion correlates to the benefits they’ve received from the government.

Impact on Private Schools and Students

With this ruling, private schools now face the burden of funding education for the remaining 15% of EWS students—without any financial backing from the government. This has left many institutions reconsidering their admission strategies and budgeting.

“This partial reimbursement is a compromise. It offers clarity, but shifts a significant financial load onto schools already grappling with rising operational costs,” said a principal from a leading private school in Chandigarh, requesting anonymity.

Notable Clarifications in the Order

• The UT administration rejected Vivek High School’s claim for reimbursement of expenses for Montessori-level admissions (children aged 18 months to 2.5 years).
• As per RTE Act and National Education Policy 2020, pre-school education is recognized only from the age of 3 years.
• Hence, reimbursements will apply only from the pre-primary 1 level (3+ years age group).

A Victory for Parental Choice

The DSE emphasized that the right to choose a school lies with the parents of EWS students, not the state. Schools cannot demand that government school seats be filled first before private schools admit EWS students. Nor can the administration force parents to opt for a government institution just because it’s within the neighborhood.

“The entire scheme under the RTE Act is built around the idea of inclusive education and freedom of school choice, especially for underprivileged families,” the order read.

---

Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Policy and Practicality

While the Chandigarh Administration’s order brings legal clarity, it also reignites the debate around equity, funding, and fair access to quality education. Private schools, though partially relieved, are left to shoulder the significant cost of inclusive education—keeping the spirit of the RTE Act alive, but at a financial cost.

As the education community digests the implications of this decision, one thing is clear: the road to truly inclusive and accessible education still demands collective effort, sustainable policy backing, and robust financial frameworks.