Delhi High Court: In a writ petition made by a young citizen to redeem the constitutional promise of the Right to Education made to him by Article 21A of the Constitution after he was denied admission in a private unaided school in Delhi despite being selected for admission in Class-I, Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) Category, a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. directed the School to allow the petitioner to complete admission formalities by 27-08-2024 and also gave directions to the Department of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (‘GNCTD’) to inquire about the anomaly.
Background
The facts of the present matter are that vide circular dated 17-01-2024, the Directorate of Education (‘DoE’) (respondent 5) released the tentative list of vacancies in private unaided recognized schools of Delhi for online admission of EWS/DG category students and Children with Disabilities in entry-level classes for the academic session 2024-25.
The petitioner contended that Aadharshila Vidya Peeth (‘School’) (respondent 1) was listed at serial no. 661 and displayed 44 EWS/DG category seats at entry level to be vacant. The DoE extended the last date for filing objections regarding the published tentative vacancies for online admission of students up to 02-02-2024. However, the DoE did not notify any change.
The petitioner was studying in a school run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and belonged to the EWS Category. He wanted to obtain admission in Class I for 2024-25 against the vacancies that were notified, and he was allotted the School by DoE through a draw of lots on 31-05-2024.
The last date for the successful applicants to report at the allotted schools for admission was 28-06-2024 which is why the petitioner visited the school on 06-06-2024 with the requisite documents and the security staff did not even let him enter the premises by saying that the school staff was unavailable due to commencement of summer vacations.
The petitioner submitted that he visited the school at least six to seven times between 06-06-2024 to 30-06-2024 but he was never allowed to enter the premises. Since the last date for admission came to be extended till 15-07-2024, the petitioner attempted to enter the school on 01-07-2024 but failed again.
The last date for admission was finally extended till 07-08-2024 but despite various efforts, the petitioner remained unsuccessful in securing the admission. The petitioner, having no other option, approached the Court by way of the present writ petition.
The school, in its counter affidavit, stated that the petition was not maintainable since the school was run by a private unaided society. The school also submitted that it had declared a total number of 126 seats for the academic year 2024-25 for its entry-level wherein 94 were for the General category and 32 were reserved for EWS/DG category students. The school submitted that there were no vacant seats either in the General category or in the EWS category for 2024-25 in Class I.
The school further submitted that it fulfilled the requirement of admitting the students and in the absence of any vacancy, no writ could be issued to increase the intake capacity.
Analysis and Decision
The Court analyzed the contention related to maintainability which was raised solely on the ground that since the school in question was a private unaided institution, it would not fall in the definition of State as understood in the context of Article 12 of the Constitution, and thus, would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The Court said that the power of judicial review of a Constitutional Court is of a fundamental nature and is meant for the protection of the citizens, hence, a declaration of non-maintainability must require a high standard.
The Court referred to Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan (2005) 6 SCC 657 wherein the Supreme Court stated that if a private body is discharging a public function and denial of any right is done in respect of a public duty imposed upon such body, the public law remedy can be enforced.
Therefore, the Court stated that merely because the body against which a writ is sought is private, a writ cannot be termed as non-maintainable unless the case is examined on other parameters. The Court said that even though the parameters cannot be specifically defined, a public law element must be involved in the matter.
The Court said that the definition of ‘school’ in Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’) also includes an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grant to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or local authority. Thus, the Court said that considering Article 21A of the Constitution, a public duty was cast upon the school.
Further, since the petitioner had alleged the infraction of his fundamental rights, the objection raised by the school regarding the maintainability was overruled by the Court, and the petition was found to be maintainable.
The Court noted that the Government of NCT of Delhi (‘GNCTD’) had evolved various methods for ensuring the admissions of children belonging to weaker sections to fulfill the mandate of Article 21A as well as the RTE Act.
The Court found it important to note that the reply given by the school did not reveal any satisfactory ground as to why the petitioner was not given entry despite several visits to the school. The Court said that the instances in the present matter were symbolic of the inefficiencies in the system which strengthen the educational inequalities instead of removing them.
The Court stated that all stakeholders involved in the admission process of students, especially those who belong to the weaker sections of society including the EWS/DG category are expected to ensure that any impression that may suggest any discriminatory treatment, either intentional or systematic, is not created in the mind of the students or parents seeking admission. It was also stated that even though the school may have been run by a private un-aided society, if a student is duly allotted a seat and approaches the school to claim his right, he should not be denied entry.
The Court said that the communication gap between DoE and the School was the reason for the petitioner’s suffering. However, any contention saying that the said allotment had been allegedly done in contravention of any circular or against any other provision or scheme could not be a determinative factor in ascertaining the right of the petitioner to get admitted to the school.
The Court said that the petitioner’s current enrolment in a school run by the MCD had no bearing on determining his entitlement to get admitted to the school and that no express provision had been shown by the school that may put a bar on the petitioner to seek admission in the school.
The Court opined that the denial of admission to any child once the allotment has been made, would be in violation of the pious and ambitious objectives which the RTE Act seeks to achieve.
The Court referred to Gunjan as Guardian of Pihu v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi1 wherein it was observed that any injury to the dignity of a student belonging to the EWS/DG category, who is made to feel unequal due to the insensitive systematic treatment by any of the stakeholders, is a deeply damaging injury, and that it is the duty of the courts to resolve any barriers for smooth implementation of the RTE Act.
The Court stated that the right of the petitioner to seek admission to the school stood crystallized and was fully affirmed. Thus, the Court passed the following directions:
-
The school was directed to allow the petitioner to complete the admission formalities by 27-08-2024
-
The Secretary, DoE, GNCTD was directed to initiate an inquiry to ascertain who was at fault in creating the anomaly wherein the seat came to be allotted to the petitioner and to fix accountability for the same before the next date of hearing
-
The Secretary, DoE was directed to place the steps, if any, taken by the department to impart suitable sensitization training to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private un-aided schools for proper implementation of the RTE Act
-
A competent officer designated by the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi was directed to inquire whether the petitioner was allowed to enter the school premises. The school was directed to preserve the CCTV footage for the gate/premises and make it available for the inquiry.
[Master Jai Kumar v. Aadharshila Vidya Peeth, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5943, Decided on 23-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Kotla Harshvardhan, Advocate Rishabh Arora
For Respondents — Advocate Jyoti Taneja, PC Divyam Nandarajog, Advocate Prakhyat Gargasya
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. W.P.(C) 9810/2024
