0

Advantage not to be taken of minority educational institution certificate obtained after committing default in complying with the directives which were already issued much prior to the date of such certificate : Bombay High Court

Educational institutions are required to follow the necessary rules and regulations regarding admissions. However these institutions should not skirt around or evade these rules and regulations that were made to protect the general public. This was held in the judgment passed by a two bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. D. DHANUKA AND JUSTICE R.I.CHAGLA, in the matter of Ashish Patel V. Edubridge International School, Chankya Gyan Kendra, dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed for an order and directions against the respondents to forthwith grant admission to his son as per the allotment letter issued to the petitioner by the competent authorities under the Right to Education Act, 2009 in Standard I during the academic year 2020-21 or 2021-22.

The petitioner’s son was issued a certificate of disability of persons with autism sometime in the year 2019, the petitioner applied for online admission of his son under the Right to Education Act, 2009. On 10th April, 2019, the respondents issued a letter of allotment under the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009 thereby granting admission to the petitioner in the respondent no.1 school for the 1st standard English Medium. Counsel for the petitioner invited attention to various documents annexed to the petition and submitted that the respondent no.1 had included its name on the portal under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and based on the name having appeared on the portal, the competent authority had directed the respondent no.1 to grant admission to the petitioner under the 25% reservation under the Right to Education Act, 2009 as far back as on 10th April, 2019. He submitted that though the petitioner had approached the respondent no.1 school, no admission was granted to the son of the petitioner by the respondent no.1.

Counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted in the respondent no.1 school on the ground that the respondent no.1 being a minority unaided educational institution managed by the respondent no.2 which is a public charitable trust. Counsel submitted that the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009 does not apply to the minority educational institution under the provisions of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. It is submitted that the State of Maharashtra had granted certificate in favour of the respondent no.2 granting status of minority educational institution on 17th February, 2020.

After hearing both the parties The hon’ble Bombay High court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to comply with the directives issued by the Education Department on 11th April, 2019 to grant admission to the son of the petitioner as the disobedience of the directives issued by the Education Department cannot be condoned by obtaining. Also the application for stay by the respondents was rejected.

Click here to view judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat