Nearly 1,000 students got admissions in 200 schools in Delhi from 2013 to 2015 with fake economically weaker section (EWS) certificates to avail of quota for the category, according to sources associated with the police probe into the scam.
This is what has emerged after scrutiny of 200 schools, more such cases could emerge as the probe looks at other schools, said sources.
Delhi Police Crime Branch is set to file a supplementary chargesheet next month in the EWS scam naming principals of four private schools as the main accused, said a source Monday. Additionally, the chargesheet would also name 95 couples as the main accused, added the source.
“In their last supplementary chargesheet, police had mentioned the names of 65 fathers as the main accused, but court concerned found the signature of mothers in all the EWS forms. Subsequently, the names of all 65 mothers were also mentioned as main accused,” said the source.
Going ahead, investigators are likely to talk to principals of schools where admissions with fake EWS certificates have been spotted, said sources.
Earlier, Joint Commissioner of Police (crime) Ravindra Yadav had said these fake EWS certificates were used to gain admission in several schools including DPS in Rohini, Vasant Kunj, RK Puram, Mathura Road; Junior Modern School in Humayun Road; Lancer Convent, Ryan International School, Montfort School in Ashok Vihar; GD Goenka, Heritage School, Vikas Bharti in Rohini; and Bal Bharti School in Pitampura.
Of the admissions on the basis of fake certificates, 30 were found in Lancer Convent School in Rohini; 35 in Apeejay School in Pitampura; 10 in Junior Modern School in Humayun Road; and 20 in Venkateshwar Global School, said a source.
“The EWS certificates of nearly 70 per cent students were found forged and most of these certificates were made from outside the offices of sub-divisional magistrates (SDMs) by touts. They took Rs 500 to Rs 5,000 from parents,” added the source.
Investigation also found that some of the schools sent these EWS certificates to the offices of SDMs concerned during the process of scrutiny, but did not receive any reply in the last three years, said the source.
“The Crime Branch recently sought answers from SDM offices, but most could not give satisfactory replies. Answers came from two offices, but without documents being provided,” added the source.