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

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