#school Archives - Prime Legal

29 Mar

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 #admission, #Article 21A, #Delhi HC, #Directorate of Education, #DoE, #Economically Weaker Section, #EWS, #Right to choose, #Right to free and compulsory education, #RTE Act, #school

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

14 Nov

“Estoppel Denied: Court Upholds Ineligibility Criteria, Dismisses Writ Petition for District Judge Post”

Prime Legal

Blog #judge, #judgement, #law, #LEGAL, #school

Title: Trupti Mayee Patra vs. Registrar, Examination, Orissa High Court

Citation: W.P.(C) No. 35020 Of 2023

Coram: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH, MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

Decided on: 3-11-23

Introduction:

This case involves a writ petition presented through a hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode. The petitioner seeks the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The primary relief sought is a direction to the Opposite Party to include the petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for participating in the recruitment examination for the position of District Judge from the Bar, 2023. The specific demand is for the issuance of a fresh list to address the petitioner’s inclusion in the said examination

Facts:

The petitioner, initially enrolled as an advocate with the Orissa State Bar Council, practiced from 2004 to 2014. Subsequently, she joined as a Junior Clerk in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Malkangiri, surrendered her license in 2016, and later became an Assistant Public Prosecutor from March 13, 2018. The petitioner applied for the post of District Judge from the Bar in 2020, 2021, and 2022 but was unsuccessful.

In 2023, the High Court of Orissa issued an advertisement for the same post. The petitioner applied, but her eligibility was questioned, and she was found ineligible due to the requirement of seven years of continuous Bar practice. The respondent argues that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. The petitioner contends that having been allowed to sit for the examination in previous years, she should not be disqualified this time. The court notes the petitioner’s active practice from 2004 to 2014 but finds that she lacks seven years of continuous practice preceding her application.

The case revolves around the eligibility criteria outlined in Article 233 of Chapter-VI (subordinate Courts) of the Constitution of India, specifically Clause 2, governing the appointment of District Judges. The court has to determine whether the petitioner fulfils the necessary criteria for eligibility in the recruitment examination for the post of District Judge from the Bar.

Court analysis & judgement:

In this judgment, the court addresses the petitioner’s plea for inclusion in the eligibility list for the recruitment examination to the post of District Judge from the Bar. The petitioner relies on the principle of estoppel, arguing that having been allowed to appear in the examination in previous years, she should not be disqualified this time. The court dismisses this argument, emphasizing that the inadvertent allowance of a person to appear in an examination earlier, who was not eligible, does not confer a right to appear when the necessary eligibility criteria are not met. The court distinguishes the relied-upon decisions in Basanta Kumar Mohanty and N. Murugesan, stating that they are not applicable to the present case due to different contexts and statutory bars.

The judgment refers to the eligibility criteria stated in the advertisement by the High Court of Orissa, which requires candidates to have at least seven years of practice as an advocate as of April 1, 2023. The court concludes that the petitioner does not meet this criterion, rendering her ineligible for the examination.

The court cites the decisions of the Apex Court in Deepak Aggarwal and Dheeraj Mor, applying them to the present case. It asserts that the petitioner’s lack of continuous practice for seven years makes her ineligible. Consequently, the court upholds the decision of the Opposite Party (OP) to consider the petitioner ineligible for the post of District Judge, stating that it does not require interference. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

Written By: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 Aug

Delhi High Court to Take into Account Providing Delhi Police with Guidelines to Follow in Missing Child Cases

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #children, #delhihighcourt, #delhipolice, #HighCourt, #missing, #school

Title: Lamboder Jha v. Govt NCT of Delhi & Ors
Ordered on: 28th July, 2023

+ W.P.(CRL) 2131/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Introduction

This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is the father of a missing minor girl, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the respondents (police authorities) to adhere to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 23.11.2016 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development and locate the whereabouts of the missing minor daughter and expedite the investigation in relation to the complaint filed by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner’s minor daughter, aged about 16 years, had gone missing on 10.07.2023. The petitioner had lodged a complaint with the Police Station Kalindi Kunj, and an FIR was registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that despite several visits to the police station, he could not obtain any information about his daughter. He further claimed that the police had not followed the SOP for cases of missing children issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The writ petition was filed to highlight the lapses in the police procedure in finding the missing child.

Courts analysis and decision

The Court interacted with the missing minor girl, “X,” who expressed her apprehensions in accompanying her father. She conveyed her desire to continue her studies and attend school regularly, but she feared that her parents might discontinue her education and treat her poorly due to the incident. The Court counselled both the minor girl and her father and assured them of support.

Considering the minor girl’s aspiration to continue her studies and her present educational status as a 10th standard student, the Court directed that her studies would not be discontinued. The school principal was instructed to accept any leave application submitted by the father, covering the period when the minor girl had not attended school, without asking any uncomfortable questions to either the child or the father. The father, in turn, was tasked with ensuring that his daughter continued to attend the government school she was enrolled in.

To verify compliance, the SHO of PS Kalindi Kunj was directed to send a female Sub-Inspector to the petitioner’s house in plain clothes for the next six months to ensure that the minor girl attended school comfortably, and her studies were not interrupted.

In response to the petitioner’s contention that the police did not fully follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for missing child cases, the Court acknowledged the importance of addressing this issue. The Court decided to pass appropriate directions regarding the proper implementation of the SOP in all cases of missing children, with the assistance of the State. The case was scheduled for further consideration on 01.08.2023.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Chick here to view Order

7 Jun

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

Prime Legal

Blog #reservation, #righttoeducation, #school, #students

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

Written by- Anushka Satwani