0

Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition for School Admission Denied Over Discrepancies and Lack of Allotment

Blog, Delhi High Court , ,

Case title: MASTER HITESH VERMA VS. DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.

Case no:  W.P.(C) 2129/2024

Order on: 29.02. 2024

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

Fact of the case:

A student named Hitesh Verma, represented by his father, belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC), applied for school admission. Applied for admission under the Disadvantaged Group (DG) category through the Department of Education (DoE). His name was selected through a lottery system run by the Department of Education (DoE). The school he was allotted, DAV Public School, refused to admit him. The petitioner’s father approached various authorities but did not immediately seek judicial redress. A year later, Hitesh’s father filed a writ petition asking for Hitesh to be admitted to Class II at the same school for the subsequent academic year.

Legal provisions:

  • Right to Education Act (RTE Act):

The RTE Act ensures that children have the right to free and compulsory education, which includes provisions for admission of children from disadvantaged groups.

  • Writ of Mandamus:

A writ of mandamus is a judicial order directing a government official or entity to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to complete.

  • Doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium:

This legal maxim means “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” It implies that a remedy must be available when a legal right is infringed

Contentions of Appellant:

The petitioner, Hitesh Verma, argued that he was entitled to admission to Class I at DAV Public School based on the allotment by the Department of Education (DoE) through a computerized lottery system. Despite being informed of his selection, the school refused to admit him. Hitesh’s father claimed that he approached various authorities to resolve the issue but received no assistance. Due to the refusal of admission to Class I, the petitioner sought a court order to admit Hitesh to Class II at the same school.

Contentions of Respondents:

The school’s counsel, Mr. Yogesh Kumar, who acted as respondent, pointed out discrepancies between the details filled in the original application for admission and the details provided in the writ petition. The respondent argued that the petitioner had only been allotted a seat in Class I, not Class II. There was no allotment or entitlement for admission to Class II through any subsequent lottery.

Court analysis& Judgement:

The court acknowledged the discrepancies in the details provided by the petitioner’s father. However, the father explained that these errors were due to mistakes made by his wife when filling out the forms. The court emphasized that the right to admission under the Disadvantaged Group (DG) category can only be enforced if it stems from an allotment by the DoE through the computerized draw of lots. The petitioner was only allotted a seat in Class I and did not seek timely judicial redress for the refusal of admission in that class. The court ruled that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to direct the school to admit the petitioner to Class II without an allotment for that class by the DoE. Such a writ would lack an enforceable right and could unfairly prejudice other students who might have applied and been shortlisted for Class II through the proper procedures. The petition was dismissed. The court stated that without a DoE allotment for Class II, there was no enforceable right to admission. The court did not award any costs and highlighted the importance of addressing such issues contemporaneously.

“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- Antara Ghosh

Click here to view Judgement

0

Schools are prohibited from denying admission to children in the EWS/DG class on unreasonable considerations after being allotted by the Department of Educational Institutions: High Court of Delhi

Blog , , ,

Title: SHAHNAZ KHATOON & ORS. v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL

Decided on: 31 st May, 2023 & 1st June, 2023 CONT.CAS(C) 83/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

Introduction

According to Justice Mini Pushkarna, the court cannot overlook the reality that underprivileged sectors of society must be given equal opportunity to advance in life. “This includes giving students from disadvantaged groups as well as financially backward classes the opportunity to learn in schools alongside kids from other backgrounds so that they can be members of the mainstream of society,” the court stated.

 It went on to say that if admissions are denied to candidates under the EWS or DG category on unfair grounds, the limited seats available under the category will be wasted. “Such a situation shouldn’t be allowed, as every vacant seat against the EWS/DG quota represents a denial of quality education to a child from a poor stratum of society,” it said.

Facts of the Case

The statements were made by the court while hearing a contempt petition filed by three children against GD Goenka Public School for failing to comply with an order requiring it to admit them to class 1 under the EWS/DG category.

 The pupils were successful in the Delhi Government’s Directorate of Education’s lotteries and were assigned to the school in question, but they were denied admission due to several concerns expressed by the institution. The court granted the petitions and directed the petitioner students to reach out to the school within a week’s duration to seek enrollment in Class 1 under the EWS or DG category. “The defendant school is directed to right away handle the documentation as accepted by means of the petitioner and grant enrollment under the EWS or DG category for Session 2023-2024.

Courts Analysis and Decision

Rejection of enrollment to a kid in the EWS or DG category, according to Justice Pushkarna, would violate such children’s rights under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution as well as their rights within the Constitution’s Right to Education Act 2009.

“The defendant school cannot shirk its duties under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which imposes an unambiguous responsibility on the State to deliver free and compulsory schooling to all children aged 6 to 14 years as a vital right,” the court stated. It further stated that under the RTE Act, the institution is required to reserve 25% of its seats with the available or reported strength of its entry-level courses.

 Notifications of Recovery for a Larger Pension Noting that the DOE receives an enormous number of applications under the EWS or DG category and that seats are very limited, Justice Pushkarna stated, “Thus, once an institution has been properly provided by the Department of Education to a candidate for enrollment under the EWS/DG category, the educational institutions cannot deny entrance to students under the EWS/DG category by raising such objections.”

Judgement

Click here to review the judgement

“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.”

Written by- Anushka Satwani