0

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Orders, Remands EWS/DG Admission Exemption Dispute for Fresh Consideration

Blog , , , , , ,

Case Name: Apeejay School, Sheikh Sarai v. Directorate of Education 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 6747/2024 

Dated: May 10, 2024 

Quorum: Justice C Hari Shankar 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facys of the case are so that the first prayer asks the Directorate of Education (DoE) to rule on the petitioner-school’s application, dated 25 April 2024, which requests a waiver from the school’s admission of EWS/DG/CWSN category students in proportion to the number of general category students it actually admitted during the academic year 2024–2025. The deadline for these decisions is May 15, 2024. 

No one disputes that the Department of Education (DoE) uploaded the seat matrix, covering the cover of Circular dated January 17, 2024, on its website. This matrix shows the number of general category students (EWS, DG, CWSN, and other similar categories) that the schools would have to admit during the academic year 2024–2025. Schools who wanted to contest the numbers in the annexures to the aforementioned circular could do so within a week by presenting documentation.  

Within the time frame specified in the circular, the petitioner filed a representation on January 23, 2024, asking for a decrease in the number of EWS/DG/CWSN seats that the petitioner was obligated to fill for the 2024–2025 academic year. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

The DoE’s learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, submits that the representation in question has been taken into consideration, and that some reductions have been made in the number of EWS/DG/CWSN and the students the petitioner would have to admit in different classes. As a result, the figure has been brought down below what the DoE had uploaded in accordance with the circular dated January 17, 2024. 

Additionally, after taking into account any claims made by the schools, he has distributed the most recent tabulated data pertaining to each institution around the Bar. On the final hearing date, Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, the Apeejay School’s senior counsel, raised concerns about the maintainability of the WP(C) 12305/2019. He argued that since the DoE lacks the authority to set fees, the prayer, which expressly requests that the DoE set the Respondent 1 school’s fees, could not be approved. 

According to Mr. Jha, the DoE is expressly authorised by the aforementioned decision to set the fees for accredited unaided schools. He argues that this paragraph serves as the foundation for his request in prayer for guidance from the DoE about Respondent 1 school’s costs. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

For the petitioner, Mr. Kamal Gupta, an experienced attorney, argues that his client was not sent a separate order conveying the conclusion. However, it would be impractical to expect the DoE to express specific orders on each representation for a reduction of seats received from a school below the levels specified in the seat matrix, given the size of the task that the DoE is faced with each year at this time.  

The respondents assert that the updated data for every school was posted to the DoE’s MIS site. He additionally agrees to give Mr. Gupta a copy of the pertinent portion of the data during the day, to the extent that they relate to the petitioner-school. 

The respondents further argue that prayer (A) in the current petition is unaffected by the decision regarding the aforementioned representation. He argues that the question of how many seats are allocable to that specific school is distinct from the right of EWS/DG/CWSN candidates to request an exemption from having to fill up to 25% of the seats at the entrance level. He claims that the submission dated April 25, 2024, is one that requests an exception, which may be chosen once the admissions have been made.  

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

the Coordinate Bench in Rameshwar Jha, to which Mr. Gupta himself drew my attention, issued comprehensive directions regarding the manner in which the EWS/DG/CWSN seats are to be filled by the schools. The court noted that these directions are detailed and exhaustive, taking into account practically the entire law on the subject and taking into account all circulars issued by the DoE, in particular the interim order passed in Action Committee Recognised Private Schools.  

According to the court, each student has a unique right to request an exemption. If a student is recommended and informed that they will be admitted to the school under the “weaker section” quota, they have one week to file an application for an exemption. The reason the school is unable to admit that specific student must be stated on the application.  

Therefore, it is inadmissible that the petitioner-school was authorised to submit the submission dated April 25, 2024, which requests an exemption. The representation appears in paragraph 123 of the Rameshwar Jha ruling, in the teeth of instruction (c). Any suggestion that the school could be permitted to favour would have to be made within a week of the student in question—who the school was having trouble admitting—being notified of their admission.  

 

“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.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

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

Blog , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Click here to view the Judgement