MASTER VANSH RATHOR Vs MAHARAJA AGRASEN MODEL SCHOOL AND ANR
- Citation2024 SCC OnLine Del 3805
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A school's representation against a seat matrix uploaded by the Directorate of Education, if it seeks reduction only in seats for certain classes and does not challenge the seats notified for a particular class, cannot be relied upon to resist admission of a student allotted to that class through the computerized draw of lots. Where a Court refrains from passing an order of provisional admission during an academic year on the basis of a submission made by a school that is found upon examination to be misconceived or erroneous, and the academic year thereafter comes to an end, the student cannot be denied relief on the ground that no provisional admission was granted during that year, and the Court may grant relief by admitting the student to the next class if circumstances warrant such relief. A student allotted a seat through the computerized draw of lots by the Directorate of Education during an academic year and who would ordinarily be entitled to relief during that year, but was denied provisional admission due to a misconceived objection by the school, is not to be prejudiced by the lapse of the academic year and may be granted admission to the following class as an EWS student with all attendant benefits and facilities.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
weaker sections (EWS). He applied to the Directorate of Education (DoE), through his father, for admission as an EWS student in Class I for the academic session 2023-2024.
2.
The data relating to the number of seats which were required to
be filled in by various schools in various classes from students belonging to the EWS/DG/CWSN categories was uploaded by the DoE on its website on 13 January 2023. The said data has been placed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2135/2024 KUMAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:52:37
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Page 1 of 7 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:51:53
on record with the counter-affidavit of the DoE. The fact that this data was uploaded on 13 January 2023 is not in dispute.
3.
The data reveals that in Class I, the Respondent School was
required to fill in 19 seats from EWS/DG/CWSN students. These were carry forward seats which had remained unfilled by the Respondent School in earlier years. The principle of carry forward, I may note, stands affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal1 and by this Bench in Anjali Pandey v. GNCTD2.
4.
On 29 February 2024, it had been stated before this Court by
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent School, that, for the academic year 2023-2024, the Respondent School had within the time granted by the DoE in that regard, filed a representation against the seat matrix which was uploaded on 13 January 2023. In as much the said representation had not been considered by the DoE, it was sought to be submitted that the Respondent School could not be compelled to admit the petitioner.
5.
The DoE was asked to file response in that regard but none is
forthcoming.
6.
In view of this submission of Mr. Yogesh Kumar before this
Court on 29 February 2024, no order of provisional admission of the
1 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5272 2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 584 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2135/2024 KUMAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:52:37
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Page 2 of 7 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:51:53
petitioner in the Respondent School was made.
7.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar has taken me through the representation
which was preferred by the Respondent School against the seat matrix which was uploaded on 13 January 2023. It is true that the representation was preferred on 23 January 2023, within the period of ten days provided for representing against the uploaded seat matrix. It is also true that in the said representation, the Respondent School has asked for sizing down of the number of seats notified in the seat matrix.
8.
The reduction in seats reflected in the seat matrix was, however,
sought in respect of the notified seats for Nursery / Pre-School and KG / Pre-Primary. There is no request in the representation dated 23 January 2023 for any reduction in the 19 seats identified as requiring to be filled by the Respondent School in Class 1 from EWS students for the academic year 2023-2024. In that view of the matter, representation dated 23 January 2023 preferred by the Respondent School does not help its case.
9.
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, thereafter, seeks to rely on judgment of this
Court in Ankit Kumar v. GNCTD3, to contend that as there is no order of provisional admission and no seat has been reserved in favour of the petitioner in Class I by this Court, as the 2023-2024 academic year has drawn to a close and we are now in 2024-2025, no relief can be granted to the petitioner who would have to apply with all other EWS
3 Signature Not Verified 2024 SCC Online Del 3118
Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2135/2024 KUMAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:52:37
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Page 3 of 7 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:51:53
candidates for admission in the 2024-2025 academic year against freeship seats in accordance with the second proviso to Section 12(2) of the RTE Act.
10.
Ordinarily, it is true that this Court would not grant relief to a
petitioner if the academic year for which the petitioner was shortlisted by the DoE in its computerized draw of lots has already come to an end, the principle is that in the next academic year, it is not just that student alone but all other students of the EWS category who would have a right to seek admission in the educational institutions. The petitioner would therefore ordinarily have to compete with all other students.
11.
Where, however, an order of provisional admission is passed by
the Court during the academic year for which the petitioner was allotted a seat in the Respondent School by the DoE consequent on the computerized draw of lots, the Court is well within its authority to grant relief even after the academic year has come to an end.
12.
The only reason why this Court did not pass any order of
provisional admission in favour of the petitioner was because of the statement made on behalf of the School that an application pointing out discrepancies in the seat matrix uploaded by the DoE on 13 January 2023 had been preferred by the Respondent School within the time provided in that regard.
13.
On going through the said representation, however, it is seen
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2135/2024 KUMAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:52:37
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Page 4 of 7 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:51:53
that it does not seek any reduction in the number of notified seats which were required to be filled by the Respondent School in Class I. The objection, which was raised by the School before this Court on 29 February 2024, and which persuaded this Court not to pass any interim order of provisional admission was, therefore, misconceived.
14.
Had such an objection not been raised, this Court would
following similar orders passed in other cases have granted provisional admission to the petitioner.
15.
In as much as absence of order of provisional admission, was
because of an erroneous statement made by the School before this Court on 29 February 2024, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced in that regard.
16.
This case cannot therefore be equated with one of the ordinary
cases in which there is no order of provisional admission or reservation of any seat in favour of the petitioner by the Court and the petitioner comes up for hearing after the concerned academic year has ended.
17.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion
that the petitioner would be entitled to be admitted as an EWS student to a seat in Class II to the Respondent School and would be continued to be imparted education as an EWS student in accordance with the provisions of the RTE Act.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2135/2024 KUMAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:52:37
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Page 5 of 7 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:51:53
18.
It is made clear that this order is being passed in the peculiar
circumstances of this case and in view of the statement which had been made before this Court on 29 February 2024 on behalf of the Respondent School and which on deeper scrutiny made today is found not to be correct.
19.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Respondent School is
directed to admit the petitioner as an EWS student in Class II. It is true that the RTE Act does not extend to Class II but as the Respondent School, nonetheless is required to admit 20% of students belonging to the EWS category from Classes II onwards.
20.
In the peculiar circumstances of this case, one such seat shall be
granted to the petitioner, who shall thereafter continue to be educated by the Respondent School as an EWS student with all facilities to which such students are entitled including school uniform, textbooks and the like.
21.
The fees for educating the petitioner as an EWS student
otherwise payable to the Respondent School would be reimbursed by the DoE.
22.
The DoE is also directed to ensure compliance with the above
direction to admit the petitioner as an EWS student in the Respondent School in Class II.
23.
The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms with no
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2135/2024 KUMAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:52:37
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Page 6 of 7 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:51:53
orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J. MAY 21, 2024/yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2135/2024 KUMAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:52:37
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Page 7 of 7 By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.05.2024 16:51:53
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free