Tag Archives: #delhi

Case Title: MASTER HITESH VERMA versus DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.

Case No: W.P.(C) 2129/2024

Decided on: 29th February , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

Facts of the case

The case involves a student, Master Hitesh Verma, who belongs to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. He applied for admission as a Disadvantaged Group (DG) category candidate to Class I in a school referred to as Respondent 1. The Department of Education (DoE) conducted a computerized draw of lots, and the petitioner’s name was shortlisted for admission to Class I in the Respondent 1 school [T5]. However, despite being informed of this allotment, the Respondent 1 school declined to admit the petitioner. The petitioner then sought judicial redress by approaching the court to direct the school to admit him in Class II [T3]. It was noted that the petitioner did not have any allotment by the DoE in Class II at the Respondent 1 school. The petitioner was determined to be eligible for admission to Class I, not Class II, by the automated lotto draw. The court stressed that the DoE’s allocation following the drawing of lots in compliance with the RTE Act and DoE Circulars [T2] is the only source of the entitlement to admission as an EWS/DG student, which is enforced by a writ of mandamus. Disparities in the information submitted by the petitioner’s family when applying for privileged admission as a student in the DG category were brought to light by the ruling. The school’s counsel brought attention to these differences [T3]. In the end, the petition was dismissed by the court, which found that the petitioner lacked an enforceable right to be admitted to Respondent 1 school’s Class II. The ruling stressed that a remedy must stem from a right, and that granting admission on the basis of a mandamus without an enforceable right would harm other students who have valid claims [T4].

Issues

1. Based on the Department of Education’s (DoE) allocation for Class I as a student in the Disadvantaged Group (DG)/Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, was the petitioner eligible for admission to Respondent 1’s Class II?

2. Did the inconsistencies in the information submitted by the petitioner when requesting preferential admission as a student in the DG category affect the legitimacy of the Class II admission claim?

3. Considering the lack of a DoE allotment for that class, did the petitioner lack an enforceable right to apply for admission to Respondent 1 school’s Class II?

4. Did the petitioner’s father’s inability to submit an application for the ward’s admission to Class II request for admission to that class involve any schools?

5. In light of the circumstances, the law, and the lack of an enforceable right to such entry, was the petition for admission to Class II properly dismissed?

Legal Provisions

Right to Education (RTE) Act: Known colloquially as the RTE Act, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, establishes free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14. It also contains clauses pertaining to children from disadvantaged groups (DG) and economically weaker sections (EWS) being admitted to private schools. Computerized Draw of Lots: To allocate seats for EWS/DG category pupils in schools, the Department of Education (DoE) uses a computerized draw of lots. Fairness and openness in the admissions process are guaranteed by this procedure. Writ of Mandamus: A writ of mandamus is a type of legal remedy that can be used to force a public authority to carry out an obligation that falls under its legal purview. In the present instance, the DoE’s allotment following the computerized draw of lots is what determines a student’s eligibility for admission as an EWS/DG category student, which is enforced through a writ of mandamus. Judicial Redress: If a student is given a seat as an EWS/DG category candidate but is denied admission, they may file a judicial redress claim. The RTE Act’s requirements and any applicable DoE circulars can be followed by the court to guarantee that students’ rights are respected. These laws’ provisions

Appellant Contentions

Master Hitesh Verma, the appellant, brought up issues with Respondent 1 school’s denial of his admission to Class II through his father. The appellant’s main arguments are as follows: Application Form Errors: The petitioner’s father argued that his wife’s mistakes in filling out the form were the cause of the disparities in the information provided, including the child’s name and other data [T2]. Alleged Denial of Admission: The petitioner claimed that the Respondent 1 school refused to accept him even after informing him of his placement in Class I after the DoE’s computerized drawing of lots. The petitioner’s denial prompted them to pursue legal remedy for Class II [T5] entrance. Seeking Relief through the Court: The petitioner went to the Respondent 1 school to ask for permission to be admitted to Class II. The argument was that, after the DoE conducted a draw of lots, the petitioner ought to be admitted according to his eligibility as an EWS/DG category student [T3]. Upholding Rights under RTE Act: The appellant most likely contended that the denial of admission to Class II violated the rights guaranteed by the Right to Education (RTE) Act, which requires free and compulsory education for children from underprivileged backgrounds, even though the student was given a seat in Class I as an EWS/DG category member. These claims are a reflection of the petitioner’s attempts to claim admittance as a student in the EWS/DG category and pursue compensation for the purported refusal of Class II admission at the Respondent 1 institution.

Respondent Contentions

The petitioner’s claims were met with a number of arguments from the Respondent 1 school, as represented by Mr. Yogesh Kumar, the school’s lawyer. The respondent 1 school’s main arguments are as follows: Differences in Application Information: The Respondent 1 school identified a number of differences between the information submitted by the petitioner in order to be considered for preferential admission as a student in the Disadvantaged Group (DG) category and the information included in the writ petition. The child’s name, the type of DG category, the certificate number, the date of issue, and the phone number were among the disparities [T5]. Absence of Class II Allotment: It was brought to light that the Department of Education (DoE) had not granted the petitioner any space at the Respondent for Class II admission one educational institution. According to the DoE’s automated lot drawing, the petitioner’s claim to admission was limited to Class I, and there was no such entitlement for Class II [T3]. Lack of Enforceable Right: Because the allotment was made for Class I and no additional allotment was given for Class II, the Respondent 1 school probably claimed that the petitioner did not have an enforceable right to admission in Class II at the school. As a result, the school might have argued that the petitioner’s request for admittance to Class II lacked legal support [T4]. Emphasis on right Procedure: It’s possible that Respondent 1 school stressed how important it is to follow the guidelines and right processes for the admission of pupils in the EWS/DG category, as specified by the RTE Act and the DoE’s guidelines. The petitioner’s request for admission to Class II may not have been in line with the established procedures for allocation and admission, according to the school’s stance. These arguments offer insight into the arguments made to refute the petitioner’s request for admission to the school’s Class II, as well as the position taken by Respondent 1 school in response to the petitioner’s assertions.

Court Analysis and Judgement

Hon. Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar considered the arguments put up by the Respondent 1 school and the petitioner. The following are the main conclusions from the court’s analysis and ruling: Allotment by DoE: The court stressed that the Department of Education’s (DoE) computerized draw of lots, which was carried out in compliance with the Right to Education (RTE) Act and pertinent circulars [T1], must make an allotment in the student’s favor before the student can be admitted as a Disadvantaged Group (DG) or Economically Weaker Section (EWS) student. This right can be enforced through a writ of mandamus. Insufficient Allocation for Class II: The court observed that the petitioner was determined to be eligible to be admitted to Respondent 1 School’s Class I through a lottery administered by the Department of Education. Class II, on the other hand, had no allotment, and the petitioner lacked an enforceable right of admission [T2]. Discrepancies and Absence of Application: The petitioner submitted inconsistent information while applying for preferred admission as a student in the DG category, and the court recognized this. The petitioner’s claim to admission to Class II was further undermined by the fact that her father did not submit an application for admission to any institution [T3]. Judicial remedy and Remedies: The court emphasized how crucial it is to pursue judicial remedy as soon as possible, particularly in cases where a student is refused entry even though their seat was chosen at random. It may be detrimental to the legal claims of other students who were shortlisted for the class to issue a writ of mandamus for admission to a course for which no allocation was made [T5]. Petition Dismissed: The court denied the petition for Respondent 1 school’s Class II admission based on an examination of the facts and applicable laws. No decision regarding expenses was granted, and the ruling declared that the petitioner lacked an enforceable right to such admission [T2]. Overall, the court’s reasoning concentrated on the importance of the DoE’s allocation, the procedural requirements for admission under the RTE Act, and the necessity of prompt legal recourse in instances where admission has been denied in order to protect the equity of the EWS/DG category students’ admissions procedure.

“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 Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

2 Jun

“Ensuring Equal Educational Opportunities: Baby Angel’s Admission Denial”

Case Title: BABY ANGEL versus SACHDEVA PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR.

Case No: W.P.(C) 2124/2024

Decided on: 29th February , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

Facts of the case

The case concerns a seven-year-old pupil named Baby Angel who is a member of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of society. Following the guidelines set forth by the Directorate of Education (DoE) and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), Baby Angel applied through her father for admission as an EWS student to Sachdeva Public School’s Class III [T3]. On March 14, 2023, the DoE held an electronic drawing of lots, and it was determined that Baby Angel qualified for enrollment as an EWS student in Sachdeva Public School’s Class III [T3]. Baby Angel was denied admittance to the school without any explanation, even though she was given a place by lot [T4]. The father of the petitioner made an appearance in person, and Mr. Utkarsh Singh spoke on behalf of the DoE in court [T3]. On February 14, 2024, the court sent out an emergency notice, and the school was given until that day to submit a counter-affidavit. The school did not show up in court or submit a counter-affidavit after receiving notification through dasti and regular process [T4].

Issues

1. Was Baby Angel, an EWS student, sent away from Sachdeva Public School even though the Directorate of Education (DoE) had assigned her a place through an electronic lotteries?

2. Did Sachdeva Public School neglect to give a justification for Baby Angel’s exclusion from EWS enrollment?

3. Did the court rule that pupils assigned to a school by a computerized lotteries had a right to admission and that the institution cannot refuse them entrance?

4. Did the court’s decision allow Baby Angel, the petitioner, to enroll in Class III as an EWS student?

5. Is Baby Angel to be educated in Sachdeva Public School in compliance with the RTE Act and any relevant DoE circulars?

Legal Provisions

1. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) – The petitioner’s application for admission to Sachdeva Public School’s Class III as an EWS student complies with the RTE Act’s provisions [T3].

2. The court’s interpretation of the RTE Act – The court stressed that pupils assigned to a school by the Department of Education through an automated lotteries are entitled to admission and that the school is not allowed to refuse them entrance [T4]. These legal safeguards safeguard the right to education and prevent students from the Economically Weaker Section from being arbitrarily denied entrance on the basis of their socioeconomic position.

Appellant Contentions

In compliance with the RTE Act and Directorate of Education (DoE) Circulars, Baby Angel, the petitioner, petitioned for admission as an Economic”lly Weaker Section (EWS) student to Sachdeva Public School’s Class III [T2]. Baby Angel was denied entrance to the school for no apparent reason, even though the DoE’s computerized draw of lots determined that she was eligible for enrollment [T4]. The father of the petitioner, speaking on behalf of Baby Angel, brought this case before the court, emphasizing the school’s denial of admission even though the student was chosen by lot [T4]. These claims serve as the foundation for the appellant’s argument, which asks the court to step in and guarantee Baby Angel’s admittance attend Sachdeva Public School in Class III as an EWS student, in accordance with the distribution determined by drawing lots.

Respondent Contentions

Despite being issued notice through dasti and regular process, Sachdeva Public School, the respondent, did not show up in court or submit a counter-affidavit [T4]. Consequently, the respondent in this instance has not raised any particular arguments or defenses. The petitioner’s claims regarding the denial of admission to Baby Angel, a student who was assigned a seat as an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) student through the Directorate of Education’s (DoE) computerized draw of lots, remain unanswered, as evidenced by the respondent’s lack of representation in court [T4].

Court Analysis and Judgement

Under the direction of Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, the court considered the issue of Baby Angel, who was denied admission to Sachdeva Public School even though the Directorate of Education (DoE) had assigned her a seat by an electronic drawing of lots [T2]. The school failed to provide a counter-affidavit or an appearance in court, which the court recognized as a lack of response or defense to the petitioner’s accusations [T4]. Under such conditions, the petitioner’s eligibility to admission as an EWS student based on the allocation determined by a lot drawing was taken into consideration by the court [T3]. The court stressed how crucial it is to guarantee that children assigned to schools by computerized lotteries have the right to admission and that the schools cannot refuse to admit these kids [T4]. This idea is consistent with the provisions of the DoE’s EWS admissions directives [T3] and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). Consequently, Baby Angel’s writ petition was granted by the court, directing Sachdeva Public School to admit her as an EWS student to Class III. The court stipulated that Baby Angel would be educated in compliance with the RTE Act and any relevant DoE Circulars, and that she would have access to all resources offered to EWS pupils, such as school supplies, workbooks, and other essentials [T1]. Delivered on February 29, 2024, the verdict brought the case to a close with the relief requested by the petitioner is granted, guaranteeing her right to be admitted as an EWS student to Sachdeva Public School in accordance with the results of the DoE’s lotteries [T1].

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

2 Jun

Consideration of Senior Scale Criteria and Allegations of Discrimination: Delhi HC

Case Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Versus JAY PRAKASH SOJA

Case No: WP No. W.P.(C) 4640/2021

Decided on: 28th March , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Facts of the case

The case concerns a writ petition (W.P.(C) 4640/2021) against Jay Prakash Soja that was filed by the Government of the NCT of Delhi & Ors. Jay Prakash Soja, the respondent, began his service on October 18, 2004. The disagreement stemmed from the respondent’s senior scale being awarded to them according to the standards outlined in notices dated 30.12.1999 and 05.03.2010. The respondent’s original application (O.A.) was accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled that the respondent could not be retrospectively affected by the senior scale changes implemented on March 5, 2010, if they had started their employment before then. In its ruling on March 28, 2024, the Delhi High Court returned the matter to the Tribunal for new adjudication, giving the respondent the opportunity to prove his discrimination defense and provide the revised OA in four weeks.

Issues

Was it incorrect for the Central Administrative Tribunal to evaluate the respondent for senior scale using the standards that were in effect in 2004 instead of the revised standards that were implemented in 2010?
Did the Tribunal give enough weight to the respondent’s allegations of discrimination and unjustified appointment delay?
Can the employer modify the promotion standards and apply them consistently to all workers, including the respondent?
In light of the respondent’s allegation of discrimination, was the High Court of Delhi correct to reverse the Tribunal’s ruling and remand the case for additional consideration?

Legal Provisions

Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, under which the writ petition (W.P.(C) 4640/2021) was brought in an attempt to overturn the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision [T5], are among the pertinent legal provisions in this case. The notification dated 30.12.1999, which detailed the requirements, including six years of service [T6], for senior scale consideration. The announcement from March 5, 2010, which modified the standards for senior scale evaluation and increased the duration of service to nine years for applicants without a Ph.D. or master’s degree [T3]. The idea that a company may alter its promotion standards as needed, provided that the modification is fair and consistent for all workers in comparable circumstances [T2].

Appellant Contentions

The respondent should have been evaluated for senior scale according to the standards in effect when he joined the service in 2004 rather than the revised standards that were implemented in 2010 [T4], according to the appellant, who claimed that the Central Administrative Tribunal’s ruling was incorrect. The appellant argued that employees do not have a vested right to claim promotion based on criteria in effect at the time of their employment and that promotion criteria are subject to modify at any time by the employer [T4]. The appellant stressed that the senior scale criteria should be applied consistently to all employees and that the change was not capricious. As a result, the respondent ought to be evaluated in accordance with the revised standards that were implemented in 2010 [T4].

Respondent Contentions

The respondent said that since he had enlisted in the military in 2004 [T4], the revised senior scale requirements that were implemented after his enlistment should not be applied to him retrospectively. The respondent claimed that earlier in 2004 he was prepared to enlist, but the petitioner caused a delay in his enlistment, and by the time he did, the new requirements had been implemented [T4]. The respondent emphasized that he should be treated equally and without discrimination, since three of his cohort mates had received the senior scale benefit according to the announcement dated 30.12.1999 [T4]. The claim made by the respondent that he was the victim of discrimination and that his appointment was unjustly postponed should be taken into account during the decision-making process

Court Analysis and Judgement

After considering the arguments put up by the respondent and the appellant, the Delhi High Court rendered the following rulings: The Court stated that the employer may alter promotion standards as needed, provided that the modification is implemented consistently to all employees in comparable circumstances and is not capricious [T6]. The Central Administrative Tribunal’s ruling, which evaluated the respondent in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of his 2004 enlistment, was deemed unsustainable by the Court. The respondent’s claim for senior scale should be taken into account in accordance with the revised criteria that were implemented in 2010 [T6], the Court stressed. Although the Court overturned the Tribunal’s ruling, it accepted the respondent’s claim of discrimination and improper appointment delay, which the Tribunal [T6] did not sufficiently take into account. The respondent was given four weeks to establish his plea of discrimination and file an updated OA after the Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for new adjudication. The Court instructed the Tribunal to try to reach a decision on the matter in less than six months [T5] [T6] by taking into account the current order issued by the High Court. Ultimately, the respondent’s allegation of discrimination and the necessity for a new ruling based on the revised senior scale criteria led the Delhi High Court to reverse the Tribunal’s ruling and remand the case for additional consideration.

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

2 Jun

“Balancing Liberty and Trial Attendance: A Closer Look at the Recent Bail Judgement”

Case Title: BANADIK and others Versus STATE

Case No: BAIL APPLN. 2211/2022 & CRL.M.As. 34090/2023 & 34091/2023

Decided on: 28th March , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Facts of the case

The lawsuit concerns an incident that happened on July 8, 2021, when a number of people pulled over the vehicle belonging to the complainant, Naeem Ahemad, and his nephew, Muneeb. The attackers were initially subdued by the complainant and others, who then left. But a little while later, the assailants reappeared and opened fire, killing two innocent bystanders. According to the prosecution, there were disagreements between Danish and Firojuddin, the accused, and Mohd. Muneeb. Mohd. Muneeb had complained about the accused’s unauthorized construction before the incident. Additionally, it is said that the defendants colluded to intimidate Mohd. Muneeb into settling the dispute or face severe repercussions [T1]. The central theme of the prosecution’s case is the alleged conspiracy involving Firojuddin, Mohd. Danish, and other accused individuals to do harm to Muneeb Mohd. According to the prosecution, the accused got together close to a mosque, planned to assassinate Mohd. Muneeb, and executed their plot. Two bystanders lost their lives as a consequence of gunshot wounds during the incident. Later, two live cartridges and a handgun were found in the possession of Banadik @ Sunny, one of the accused. The prosecution additionally emphasized the accused’s apparent participation in the scheme through call records between them [T6].

Issues

1. Were the appellants seen in the incident’s CCTV footage, and did eyewitness accounts identify them as being present at the crime scene?

2. Does the prosecution’s case mostly rely on Call Data Records (CDRs) to prove the accused parties’ purported conspiracy?

3. Have official accusations been brought against the appellants, raising questions about their fundamental rights, despite their prolonged detention?

4. Is the main goal of detention to guarantee the appellants’ attendance at trial, and is there evidence to suggest that they pose a flight risk?

5. When granted bail to the appellants with certain conditions to prevent misuse of liberty, did the court take into account the presumption of innocence and the principles of personal liberty?

Legal Provisions

The legal provisions involved in this case include sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, as mentioned in the FIR and the charges against the accused:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):

– Sections 186: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.

– Sections 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.

– Section 302: Punishment for murder.

– Section 307: Attempt to murder.

– Section 120B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

– Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

2. Arms Act:

– Sections 25: Punishment for certain offences.

– Section 27: Punishment for using arms.

– Section 54: Power to arrest.

– Section 59: Power to prescribe rules.

Appellant Contentions

The appellants’ absence from the crime scene is indicated by the fact that they were not seen in the CCTV footage of the occurrence. In a comparable instance, one of the appellants was given bail despite being mentioned in the FIR and being detained, implying that they were not directly involved or that there was insufficient evidence against them. The defense contended that the trial court ought to assess the prosecution’s case once all the evidence has been given, as it mostly depends on Call Data Records (CDRs) to prove guilt. The appellants’ prolonged incarceration without formal accusations prompted questions regarding their fundamental rights and the presumption of innocence. There’s no proof that the appellants represent a flight risk , stressing that the goal of imprisonment is to guarantee their appearance at trial a goal that can be accomplished in other ways, as by imposing bail requirements [T6].

Respondent Contentions

The prosecution claims that the case against the appellants is supported by a large amount of evidence that goes beyond CCTV footage, such as witness statements that show animosity between the accused and the victims. The respondents contend that the accused’s communication during the incident is evidenced by the call records, pointing to a planned plot. It is claimed that one of the appellants intimidated a witness who was being held on provisional bail, which prompted the witness to be granted protection and the appellant’s request for an extension of release to be rejected. The respondents stress the significance of taking into account all relevant information, such as call logs and witness statements, in order to prove the accused’s guilt and the existence of a conspiracy. The prosecution draws attention to the gravity of the allegations, which include murder and criminal conspiracy, as justification for refusing bail and making sure that the case’s witnesses are protected [T5].

Court Analysis and Judgement

The appellants were not visible in the CCTV footage of the occurrence, and eyewitnesses did not identify one of the accused as being there at the crime site, according to the court. A major component of the prosecution’s case was the use of Call Data Records (CDRs) to demonstrate the conspiracy; the trial court would assess these records in further detail when the evidence was presented. The appellants have been in jail since July 13, 2021, but the charges against them have not been filed, which raises questions regarding their extended detention and their right to freedom. Citing the significance of personal liberty until proven guilty, the court underlined that the goal of imprisonment is to guarantee the accused’s attendance at trial and not for punitive or preventive measures. The tribunal based on the appellants’ lack of flight risk and granted bail with certain conditions, such as posting a personal bond, staying in the nation without authorization, and other limitations to prevent abuse of freedom. The court emphasized that the trial court was left to evaluate the evidence and decide guilt, and that any observations were only relevant to the bail decision and not indicative of the case’s merits [T1]. All things considered, the court’s decision struck a compromise between the appellants’ right to liberty and the requirement to guarantee trial attendance, establishing guidelines to stop bail abuse while awaiting more legal actions.

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace