Right To Education Cannot Be Compromised In Any Manner: Delhi HC Confirms Admission Of Pre-School Child In EWS Category
The Delhi High Court confirmed the admission of a pre-school candidate, belonging to the Economically Weaker Section(EWS).
The Court held that such a school can hardly seek to capitalise on its own fault by relying on the fact that the petitioner thereafter took admission to another school out of compulsion.
The Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar observed, “Besides, the alternate school to which the petitioner took admission had to be taken only because the respondent-school illegally denied admission to the petitioner. Having illegally denied admission to the petitioner, the respondent-school can hardly seek to capitalise on its own fault by relying on the fact that the petitioner thereafter took admission in another school out of compulsion…This case, therefore, is no different from several other cases in which this Court has been confirming the right of the children belonging to the EWS/DG category, to be admitted in schools shortlisted by the DoE consequent to computerised draw of lots conducted by it…That right is sanctified. It flows from Article 21A of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the RTE Act. It cannot be compromised in any manner whatsoever.”
Advocate Vivek Kumar Tandon appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Swati Surbhi Utkarsh Singh andStanding Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner, a five-year-old, through his Father, applied to the Department of Education (DoE) for admission to the Nursery at Adriel High School. A computerized draw of lots was conducted by the DoE, following which the Petitioner was allotted admission to a Nursery/Pre-School in the School. The School refused to admit the Petitioner despite him approaching it on several occasions, therefore, the present writ petition.
The Court previously granted admission on a provisional basis, which was challenged by the School via Appeal and Review and both were subsequently dismissed.
The Court also held, “I am also not in agreement with the fact that, as the petitioner had, prior to her being granted provisional admission in the respondent-school, been already studying in the respondent- school and that fact having not been mentioned, provisional admission ought not to have been granted. In fact, this submission cannot even be available to the respondent, as the school preferred a review petition against the order of provisional admission which also stands dismissed, and against which no further appeal has been preferred.”
The Court also reiterated that it has the inherent power to grant the final as well as provisional relief of admission to the student, though, ordinarily, a formal application to that effect is required to be filed, no jurisdictional error could be said to exist in the court granting provisional admission even if there was no formal prayer, or application, to that effect.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Master Vihan Vats v. Adriel High School & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2786)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Vivek Kumar Tandon, Mamta Tandon and Prerna Tandon.
Respondents: Advocate Swati Surbhi Utkarsh Singh and Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi
