Dismissed

Sh. Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. De Indian School and Ors.

Delhi HC6 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/28/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed writ petitions filed late for admission to private unaided schools in the EWS category for the 2017-18 academic session. Relying on precedent, the Court held relief was barred as the academic session had ended and late admission violates the Rules. The Court clarified that unfilled EWS seats would be carried forward to the next year.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions and applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sh. Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vs De Indian School… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing. W,P.[C]No.ll611/2017&conn.

¶2

. Ms.Urvi Mohan, Adv. for GNCTD.

¶3

W.P.(C) 409/2018 & C.M. Nos. 1753-1754/2018 MOHD. ARIF AND ORS. Petitioners Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv. versus KULACHI HANSRAJ MODEL SCHOOL AND ORS .... Respondents Through Mr.Satyakam, ASC for Directorate of Education. + W.P.(C) 1082/2018 & C.M. No.4524/2018 SACHIN KUMAR Petitioner Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv. versus

¶4

	ARWACmN IN	TERNATION Through	AL SCHOOL Respondent Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. for R-1.
			Mr.Jawahar Raja, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
+	W.P.(C) 1087/20	18 & C.M. N	o.4531/2018
	BPIARAT LAL		Petitioner
		Through versus	Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv.

¶5

MAHARAJA AGARSEN ADARSH VIDYALAYA Respondent Through Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2 to4.

¶6

W.P.(gNo.ll611/2017 &conn.

¶7

Page 2 of 6

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶10

REKHA PALLI. J (ORAL)

¶11

Vide the present batch of writ petitions, the Petitioners, while impugningthe draw of lots held by the Directorate of Education in respect of entry-level classes under EWS/DG Category admission in various private unaided recognized schools, have inter alia prayed for a direction to Respondents to grant admission to their wards in Class Pre-primary/KG respectively in the EWS/DG Category in the academic session 2017-18.

¶12

On 5^*^ March, 2018, when the petitions were taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the Respondents had, while placing rehance on a decision dated 31.03.2017 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar v. Venkateshwar Global School & Ors. [WP(C) No. 7945/2016], contended that the present petitions were not maintainable at this stage, as new admissions to the entry level classes in Schools must take place on or before 31st December of the academic year. In view of the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the Respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners had sought time to examine the said decision and address arguments. 3. Today, learned counsel for the Petitioners while conceding that the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge has attained finality, contends that the circumstances in which the aforesaid decision was passed, were materially different as the said case related to nonsubmission of online applications within the prescribed time. He

¶13

W.P.(qNo.ll611/2017&conn.

¶14

Page 3 of6

¶15

¶16

submits that, in the present case, the petitioners had duly submitted the online applications within the prescribed time but the respondents have erroneously not considered their applications with an aim to divert the EWS seats to General Category and, thus, contends that merely because the petitionershave approachedthis Court after 31®^ December, 2017,' they cannot be denied relief, once it is found that their wards were entitled to get admission in the EWS category in the academic year 2017-18 itself

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. Satyakam and Ms. Hetu Arora, learned counsels who appear for the respondents, submit that in the aforesaid decision in the case of Neeraj Kumar (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench has clearly held that in terms of the Delhi Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, the admission of a student to a new class can be permitted only on or before 31st December of the academic year. They further submit that the aforesaid decision of the Single Judge has been brought to the notice of the Division Bench dealing with W.P.(C) No. 3684/2013 and upon perusal of the same, the Division Bench had clarified that its previous directions to the contrary to admit students in February 2018 need not be complied with. They, therefore, submit that in view of the admitted position that the petitioners are seeking admission in the previous academic year of 2017-18, the present writ petitions are not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submit that in order to ensure that the unfilled EWS seats are not converted to general seats, the respondents have taken a considered decision that the leftover EWS seats in classes Nursery and K.G., would be carried

¶18

W.P.(;C]No.ll611/2017&conn.

¶19

Page 4 of 6

¶20

forward and added in the seats available for the EWS seats in the next higher classes namely KG and 1st. However, the unfilled seats of class 1 in 2017-18, would be added to the available EWS seats for Class 1 in the next academic year 2018-19 and, thus, there would be no carry forward of seats to class II.

¶21

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I find that the decision of this Court in Neeraj Kumar (supra), with which I respectfully agree, clearly bars grant of any relief to the petitioners at this stage. The question of granting admission to the petitioners' wards at this stage in the academic year of 2017-18, which has already ended, would be totally dehors the Scheme of the Rules and would in my view be counterproductive to the very purpose of reserving seats for children belonging to the EWS category.

¶22

I can do no better than reproduce the observations of the Co ordinate Bench in paragraph 32 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under:-

¶23

"Further in terms of the Rules of 2011, the extended period of admission isfive months i.e 31st August of that year. No doubt, the said period is not a fixed period, inasmuch as a child can also be admitted thereafter, who shall be eligible to complete the studies with the help of special training as determined by the Head of the School. Such a period need to be a reasonable period and cannot be stretched till 31st March i.e the last date of the academic year as an admission made on the last date of . the academic year, presupposes the child did not have the occasion of learning/studies/training of that particular class till that date. It is expected that child need to achieve a particular level of learning/knowledge/training to progress to the next higher level/class so as to be at par with his peers/students of his age. The question is what should be that date. I note. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2011,

¶24

Page 5 of 6

¶25

W.P.CgNo.ll611/2017&conn.

¶26

which has been reproduced above, does indicate the minimum period of at least three months of training be given to a child. If that be so, an admission must take place on or before 31st Decemberof the academicyear, as from the datefollowing that date i.e 1st January till 31st March of the academicyear, theperiod is achieved. In the cases in hand, the said period cannot be achieved at this point of time. So the prayer of the petitionersfor grant of admissioncannot be acceptedon thisground as well, apartfrom the ground that the petitioners/wardsof the petitionershave not submittedonline application.The writ petitions are dismissed."

¶27

Thus,while I find that the wards of the Petitionerscannotat this belated stage be granted admissionin the academic session 2017-18, their apprehension that the unfilled EWS seats would be converted to General Category, is wholly unfounded. In view of the categorical statementmade by the learned counsel for the respondents,that the unfilled EWS seats of 2017-18 would be added to the EWS vacancies in academic session 2018-19 and would be filled only by EWS candidates, the provisions of Delhi Right of Children to Free & CompulsoryEducationRules, 2011, would be duly taken care of and no prejudice of any kind would be caused to the eligible EWS candidates.

¶28

The writ petitions and applicationsare accordinglydismissed with no order as to costs.

¶29

(REKHi^i!PALLI) JUDGE

¶30

APRIL 06, 2018 aa/ss

¶31

W.P.(C]No.ll611/2017&conn.

¶32

Page 6 of6

Sh. Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. De Indian School and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. De Indian School and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Dhanpal Vs Land and Building Department and Anr.

Delhi Jal Board Vs Vimal Kumar

Dev Narayan Vs the Mgmt.of M/S Auto Precision

Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Ravinder Gupta Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Chadha Sports (Regd.) Vs Public Works Department, Gnctd and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

State Bank of India Vs Satish Kumar Mittal

Sh. Dhanpal Vs Land and Building Department and Anr.

Aura Foundation Vs Rehabilitation Council of India

Sh. Rakesh and Ors. Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Mohd. Arif and Ors. Vs Kulachi Hansraj Model School and Ors.

Devendra Kumar and Anr. Vs Bal Bharti Public School and Ors.

Sachin Kumar Vs Arwachin International School