The Bombay High Court held that the decision to admit a student is entirely up to the school and that a student cannot claim admission in an unaided minority school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 through the bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap in the case of Master Dhairya Pritesh Bansod .vs The Principal, Mothers Pet Kindergarten, Nagpur and ors. (WRIT PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2021 )
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petition was filed by Shri S. S. Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, who raised a new issue as a result of the denial of the petitioner’s application for admission to the first standard at the Mother’s Pet Education Society-run Centre Point School, Dabha Branch. Respondent No. 1 School is run by Mother’s Pet Education Society, a society. However, the Society has not been included in this. The petitioner is allegedly harmed by the application form’s unfair denial and the delayed notification of that rejection. For this reason, the petitioner’s knowledgeable counsel asks the court for permission to amend the petition in accordance with the suggested changes in the application.
Mr. W. T. Mathew, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, vigorously challenged this on a number of grounds. According to the law established by the Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan.v/s. Union of India and Anr.,(2012). He further contends that the petitioner does not have the right to request admission to the first standard of a school that is an un-aided minority private school.
A Private Minority Unaided School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the aforementioned case. As a result, there is no corresponding right granted to a student to apply for admission to such a school, and doing so is entirely up to the discretion and prerogative of the Private Minority Unaided School.
Second, there might be a delay in the School notifying the petitioner that their application was rejected, but this delay in notification by itself would not provide the petitioner with the right to apply for admission to that school. The petitioner would only need to seek an alternative legal remedy to compensate for any loss that may have resulted from the communication delay.
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY