news details |
|
|
| Centre shames J&K for tardy implementation of MHRD schemes | | 4743 girls enrolled against 6700 under KGBV, only 13 buildings completed against targeted 99 | | Bivek Mathur
Jammu, July 27: It has been blowing the trumpet of self praise for doing "tremendous work" in the last five and half years, but the fact of the matter is that Jammu and Kashmir government has failed dismally to execute the welfare schemes sanctioned by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) and has come under sharp censure by the centre for its failure.
The ruling regime was criticized by the Union government for its failure to provide basic amenities like toilets and drinking water in the school and weak implementation of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalya (KGBV) scheme. As per a document available with Early Times, the J&K government has enrolled only 4743 girls against the targeted 6700 girls under the scheme. Owning the shame for not complying with the targets set for construction of 99 buildings under the same scheme, the Jammu and Kashmir government has completed only 13 buildings till now.
The national evaluation of KGBV has pointed out many issues such as safety and security of girls, vacancies of wardens/ teachers, scarcity of toilets, selection of never enrolled/drop out girls etc., which needs to be addressed by the state urgently. Out of 99 KGBVs in the state 35 are Model-1 and remaining 64 Model-11, enrolling 4743 girls against the target of 6700 girls (70.79% enrollment). Union Government asked the state to enroll the remaining eligible girls before the next academic session commences and advised the state to have a clear cut strategy for mobilizing the weak community to enable the girls who are out of schools to be enrolled in KGBVS. Out of 99 buildings sanctioned for KGBVS, only 13 buildings are complete, 55 are in progress and 31 buildings are yet to be started. Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), Government of India took a serious note of this tardy completion of KGBV buildings and pointed out that expenditure on payment of rent was an avoidable one option and directed the state to expedite the construction work, funds for which have stands issued. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
