Child Has No Fundamental Right To Be Educated In A Particular School Of His/Her Choice: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that a child has no fundamental right to be educated in a particular school of his/her choice.

The court said that the right available under Article 21A of the Constitution or under Section 12 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) is limited only to free and compulsory education till the age of 14 and not for being provided such education in a particular school.

The Court held thus in a writ petition filed by a mother of a girl aged 7.5 years against Maharaja Agrasen Model School.

A Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed, “Absent such application, holding of a computerized draw of lots and shortlisting of a child for admission to a particular class in a particular school, no right to seek such admission enures in favour of the child. The right available under Article 21A of the Constitution or under Section 12 of the RTE Act is only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not for being provided such education in a particular school.”

Advocate Khagesh B. Jha appeared for the petitioner while Advocate Pramod Gupta appeared for the respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The petitioner named Jiya was born in 2016 and was around of 7.5 years age. She belonged to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of society and on her behalf, her mother applied to the Directorate of Education (DoE) for securing her admission under the EWS category in Class I for the academic session 2022-23. A computerized draw of lots was conducted by DoE, following which Jiya was shortlisted for admission in the respondent school.

Despite her mother visiting the school on several occasions, the respondent school refused to admit Jiya. Her mother accordingly addressed representations to DoE seeking its intervention to secure admission for Jiya in the said school but to no avail. Jiya, therefore, instituted the writ petition through her mother. She sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the school to grant admission to her as an EWS student in Class II for the academic session 2023-24.

The High Court after hearing both sides noted, “No child, without her application suffering the rigour of this exercise, can directly claim a right to be admitted to a particular class in a particular school in a particular year as an EWS student. … The right guaranteed to every child under Article 21A of the Constitution or under the RTE Act is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen. … That right would arise only if the child applies to the DoE as an EWS student for admission in the entry level class for that year and is shortlisted therefor, in the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE.”

The Court further said that the mere fact that the DoE had found the girl entitled for admission to Class I in the respondent school for the academic year 2022-23 cannot make that right available in perpetuity for all times to come.

“Each year constitutes a fresh academic session. A child, who, for whatever reason, is unable to secure admission into a school as an EWS candidate despite having been shortlisted therefor by the DoE, and allows that academic year to pass without initiating any legal action in that regard, cannot claim, that on the basis of the said shortlisting, that she or he has an enforceable right to admission in that school for the next academic year to the next higher class. There is no such automatic carry forward of the right which enures in favour of the student, consequent to the draw of lots conducted by the DoE for a particular academic year, to the next academic year, in that class or in any higher class. Rights, it must be appreciated, extinguish with time”, it also observed.

The Court said that the directive of the DoE in the email to the respondent school to enlist the girl that very day is not therefore, either legal or enforceable.

“By 13 April 2023, the 2022-23 academic session had come to an end. With it, it must unfortunately be said, perished Jiya’s right to admission as an EWS student in the Respondent 2 school as well. Beyond that, Jiya’s right to education under the RTE Act, or under Article 21A of the Constitution, is only for being educated till the age of 14, and not for being educated specifically in the Respondent 2 school”, it added.

The Court noted that Section 32 only enables a person having any grievance relating to the right of the child under the RTE Act, to make a written complaint to the local authority.

“I do not know whether the petitioner has made any such complaint. Assuming she, through her parent(s), has done so, the complaint would be dealt with in accordance with law. Section 32(1) cannot entitle Jiya to admission to Class II in the Respondent 2 school, for which she never approached the DoE in the first place, as an EWS student”, it added.

The Court remarked that the application made for the academic year 2022-23, and the allotment of the petitioner to the respondent school consequent to the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE as a result of the said application, has, unfortunately, outlived its welcome.

The Court concluded that it would be entirely contrary to Section 12 of the RTE Act as well as Article 21A of the Constitution not to protect the interests of Jiya insofar as her right to education, guaranteed by the said provisions, is concerned and the said guarantee, only entitles Jiya to be educated till the age of fourteen as an EWS student and to nothing more.

“Jiya is not, therefore, entitled to admission to Class II in the Respondent 2 school as sought by her. The said prayer has therefore, necessarily to be rejected. … The DoE would, however, make every endeavour to ensure that Jiya is granted admission as an EWS student in Class II in some other school. This should be done as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of pronouncement”, it ordered.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.

Cause Title- Jiya through her next friend and natural mother Ms. Sushma v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2312)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Khagesh B. Jha, Manoj Kumar, and Kumar Utkarsh.

Respondents: Advocates Pramod Gupta, Nicole Gomez, Adyanshi Kashyap, Utkarsh Singh, Prasansha Sharma, Santosh Kumar Tripathi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment