Denying Admission To Child Once Allotment Is Made Violates RTE Act: Delhi HC Grants Admission To EWS Student
The Delhi High Court granted admission to a student under the EWS (Economically Weaker Section) Category who was denied admission by the private school.
The Court observed that the denial of admission to any child once the allotment is made, is in violation of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held, “In the considered opinion of this Court, the RTE Act is a remarkable feat in reinforcing our democracy’s commitment to equality of opportunity and the same paves an egalitarian path for all the students to follow, irrespective of their financial dynamics. Therefore, the denial of admission to any child once the allotment has been made, would be in violation of the pious and ambitious objectives which the RTE Act seeks to achieve. Put otherwise, once an impression of legitimate expectation of admission is triggered in the minds of students who successfully find their names post draw of lots, it is for the Constitutional Courts to protect their interests and free them from the shackles of procedural convolutions in order to meet the ends of justice.”
The Bench also remarked that the right of the student to be admitted in a private school in the EWS category essentially flows from the Constitution alongwith the statutory mandate envisioned in the RTE Act and a fundamental right, especially when it unequivocally accrues in favour of a citizen, cannot be tossed out on the pretext of procedural grounds or on the grounds of inconvenience.
Advocate Kotla Harshavardhan appeared for the petitioner while PC Divyam Nandrajog and Advocate Jyoti Taneja appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
The petitioner student was selected for admission in Class-I in EWS category in a private unaided school in Delhi, and when he went to secure his admission, he was denied the same by the respondent-school. The Directorate of Education (DoE) had released the tentative list of vacancies in private unaided recognized schools of Delhi for online admission of EWS/DG and Children with Disabilities category students in entry level classes (i.e. Nursery, KG, and Class I) for the academic session 2024-2025. As per the petitioner’s case, the respondent school featured at serial No. 661 of the said list, wherein, 44 EWS/DG category seats were shown at entry level (Class Nursery), 3 EWS/DG seats from Nursery to KG, and 16 EWS/DG seats from KG to Class I.
The petitioner studying in a school run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and belonging to EWS category, was desirous of obtaining admission in Class I. He was found entitled for admission by the DoE via draw of lots and was allotted the respondent school. When the petitioner visited the said school for the first time with requisite documents for his admission, he was not even allowed to enter the school premises and the security staff at the gate informed that the school staff was unavailable due to the commencement of summer vacations. As per the petitioner’s counsel, he visited the school for more than 6-7 times, but he was never allowed to enter the premises. Due to this, a complaint was filed before DoE but no action was taken. Being left with no other option, he filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel emphasised, “… the right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed merely on account of a miscommunication or any other procedural irregularity between the respondent-DoE and the respondent-school. … The fact that he is currently enrolled and studying in a school run by the MCD does not have any bearing on determining his entitlement for getting admission in the respondent-school.”
The Court noted that no express provision was shown by the respondent-school which may put a bar on the petitioner to seek admission in the respondent-school while studying in a school run by the MCD and had the petitioner been intimated about the unavailability of vacant seats in the respondent-school during the allotment process itself, he could have opted/preferred some other school as per his choice and merit.
“However, the clock now cannot be turned back. The petitioner can no more exercise the option to choose any other suitable school, though his eligibility/entitlement/credentials remain undisputed. If the Court were to ask him today to continue in the MCD school, the same would be tantamount to an onslaught on his constitutional rights and the Constitutional Court would be failing in its duty to secure the fundamental rights of the young citizen who is before this Court”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court observed that this case is not the one which involves professional education and the seat matrix up to the permissible intake and other relevant factors can always be worked out depending upon various circumstances, as may be available.
“Admittedly, in the present case, the last date for admission expired on 07.08.2024. It is, thus, presumed that the academic session has not substantially progressed. Looking at the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is unable to accept the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-school that in no case the Constitutional Court should cause interference in the admission process of an un-aided private school”, it said.
The Court also enunciated that imparting of education by an un-aided private institution, evaluated on the touchstone of the Constitutional scheme and statutory mandate under RTE Act, falls within the definition of public duty and thus, the corresponding breach of such duty has to be redressed while exercising writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the respondent school to allow admission to the petitioner and ordered the Secretary, Department of Education, GNCTD to initiate an inquiry to ascertain who is at fault in creating an anomaly, wherein, the seat was allotted to the petitioner and to fix accountability in accordance with law before the next date of hearing.
Cause Title- Master Jai Kumar Through His Father Manish Kumar v. Aadharshila Vidya Peeth & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Kotla Harshavardhan and Rishabh Arora.
Respondents: PC Divyam Nandrajog, Advocates Jyoti Taneja, and Prakhyat Gargasya.
