What all parents do for kids’ admissions
Deepkamal Kaur

Ludhiana, January 2
While interviews of kids for admission to schools are just one month away, parents are putting up their best efforts to get their wards admitted to the schools of their preference. Mock interviews at preparatory schools, recommendations and commitments for high donations are some of the methods adopted by the parents.

Since selection in most of the schools is held on the basis of interview of kids, parents make it a point to send them regularly to their preparatory schools where mock interviews are held everyday. Guests are invited in schools and kids are prepared to answer all sorts of questions that might be asked during admission. At home as well, the kids are made to perform before the guests to spell away their shyness and boost confidence and promptness.

Ms Suman, a resident of Civil Lines, said that she was sending her daughter, Aanchal, to a preparatory school in the same area. She said that the daily exercise had infused much confidence in her daughter to interact with a new person. At home she said that she asked Aanchal colours of various things, names of vegetables, fruits and recognition of alphabets and numbers.

Approaching the school principals and members of the managements through back door is another must-do for a majority of the parents to ensure admission of their wards in schools. Such parents use their contacts to reach the kith and kin of school authorities and try to oblige them with expensive gifts to solve their purpose.

A principal of a local school, on the condition of anonymity, said that she was approached by a number of parents for the past few days, most of them bringing a gift and wishing “Happy New Year”. After chatting for a while, they would reveal their links with the managements and finally point towards admission of their wards, she said. “Even though I know that it is unethical but I cannot refuse the friends and relatives of members of school management,” she said.

Another parent residing at Model Town pointed out that she wanted her son to take admission in a convent school. She said that for the purpose, they would meet the Father of a church at Jalandhar, and get a letter of recommendation from him. She said that earlier too at the time of admission of her daughter she had approached the Father and her daughter was selected, she said.

The parent further said that admission highly depended on the performance of the child during interview, which she said depended on the mood of the child. “If the child is not able to perform well, such recommendations are useful. Moreover, kids are so smart and competition is so high, I do not want to leave any chance,” she said.

Students complain of paper leak
Our Correspondent

Ludhiana, January 2
Alleging leak of the mathematics question paper, students of first semester at Guru Nanak Engineering College, here have demanded that the paper be cancelled by Punjab Technical University.

The complaining students said some students had managed to procure the question paper at least three days before the examination. They said the paper was not only leaked, but was also tough, with some questions being out of syllabus. They feared that while some of the students might not be able to pass in the examination, others who had a copy of the paper might get 100 per cent marks. 

consumer courts 
Forum quashes PSEB demand
Our Correspondent

Ludhiana, January 2
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has quashed a Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) demand of Rs 62,147 from Mr Balraj Kumar, a resident of Santokh Nagar. The forum had directed the PSEB to refund the amount deposited against the said demand along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment.

According to the complaint, the electricity meter installed at the residence of the consumer was checked by the board officials on May 25, 2000. The consumer stated before the forum that after about one month, a demand of Rs 62,147 was raised by PSEB vide memo issued on June 20, 2000. He disclosed that it was mentioned in the memo that after checking the meter in the M.E. Laboratory, it was found that it had been tampered with and was recording less consumption of energy by 84.4 per cent which was a clear case of theft of power.

The consumer stated that he approached the board officials for clarification of the memo and he was asked to deposit the said amount to avoid disconnection of electricity connection. He deposited the amount through installment as it was the only temporary solution for him to avoid disconnection, he added.

The consumer further disclosed that though the meter was properly sealed and packed after removing, but he never joined the checking of the meter in the laboratory which was mandatory as per the PSEB rules. Moreover, he was not given adequate information about calculation of the said demand. He stated that he never tampered with the meter to steal power and the charges were baseless. He alleged that the demand had been raised against the rules and was liable to be quashed.

The PSEB pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable since there was no deficiency in services on its part as checking of the meter had been done on the spot and had revealed that it was running 20 per cent less than its actual speed and moreover, the cover of the meter was affixed in a wrong way.

The respondent disclosed that for more accurate details the meter was removed and sent to M.E. Laboratory for computerised checking after packing and sealing it properly. It stated that according to the laboratory report, internal coil was found to have been tampered with and the meter was recording less consumption of energy by 84.41 per cent. The respondent alleged that it was a clear case of measured theft of energy, and as such the account of the complainant was overhauled. It was demanded from the forum that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as it had been raised rightly.

The forum observed that the respondent had no evidence to prove the meter had been removed, packed and sealed properly as per rules.

The forum stated that the laboratory report did not bear the signature of consumer or his representative which meant that he was not present at the time of checking of the meter and moreover no notice was issued to him to be present at that time, which was mandatory. The forum held that the demand had been raised against the rules as the same was liable to be quashed.