Article 21A guarantees the Right to Free and Compulsory Education but not the Right to Education in a Particular School of Choice: Delhi High Court
Case title: Jiya through her Natural Mother Ms. Sushma Vs Maharaja Agrasen Model School & Anr.
Case no.: W.P. (C) 4683/2023 and CM APPL. 18067/2023
Decision on: March 22nd, 2024
Quoram: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Facts of the case
In this case, Jiya a 7 years old girl belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of society, represented by her mother had filed an application to the Directorate of Education (DoE) for securing an admission under the EWS category in Class I for the academic session 2022-23. The draw of lots process conducted by the DoE granted her an admission in the Maharaja Agrasen Model School (Respondent 2). But, despite several representations made by Jiya’s mother the School refused to admit her. Further, the redressal of the same before the DoE also rendered fatal. Consequently, a writ petition was filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent 2 School to grant admission to her as an EWS student in Class II for the academic session 2023-24.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Counsel submitted that the Respondent 2 School cannot refuse to admit Jiya, after her name was shortlisted for admission to Class I in the Respondent 2 School following the computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE. He further, placing reliance on the email dated 13 April 2023 of the DoE which directed the School to admit the petitioner submitted the same not being challenged by the Respondent 2 School is therefore binding on it. He also referenced relevant notifications and circulars supporting their case.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Counsel representing the School through a counter affidavit sought to defend its decision in not admitting Jiya in Class I for the 2022-23 academic session. Further, he also placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bushra Riyaz v. GNCTD which held that the petitioner, in that case, could not be directed to be granted admission at the school in one academic session on the basis of an application filed for the previous academic session. Thereby, he defended School’s actions in refusing the admission to Jiya for the academic year 2023-24.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court emphasizing on the issuance of writ of mandamus to a school observed that that a child seeking an admission as an EWS student at an entry level must, at first instance have applied to the DoE for admission in that year and must be shortlisted for the same by the process of draw of lots. Moreover, detailing on the intricate exercise conducted by the DoE for EWS admissions it noted that 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 Bench asserted that 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. But however, it observed that the same does not confer, on any child, a constitutional right to be educated in a particular school of her choice.
It stated that Jiya had only applied to the DoE for admission as an EWS student, but had not complied with their draw of lots procedure. Hence, in the absence of draw of lots and resultant allocation of any school to Jiya for the academic year 2023-2024, she had no enforceable right in law to seek such admission in that year to any particular school. It highlighted the mere fact that the DoE had found her entitled for admission to Class I in the Respondent 2 School for the academic year 2022-23 could not ensure the same for the years to come.
The Bench observed that the RTE Act and Article 21A of the Constitution entitles Jiya only with the right to education till the age of 14 but not the right to get educated specifically in the Respondent 2 School. Therefore, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, the Delhi High Court held that she is not entitled to admission to Class II in the Respondent 2 School. However, it directed the DoE to make every endeavour to ensure that the girl is granted admission as an EWS student in Class II in some other school.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K