Disposed

Girish Saini and Ors. v. v. S. P. K. Junior School, and Ors.

Delhi HC1 May 2018W.P.(C)/4536/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners complained that a school allotted land at concessional rates by the DDA was denying admission to EWS category children despite the Right to Education Act mandate. The court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a representation and pass a speaking order within three weeks directing the school to comply.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to treat the petition as a representation and pass a reasoned order within three weeks directing the school to comply with the Right to Education Act.

Girish Saini and Ors. Vs v. S. P. K. Junior School… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4536/2018 & C.M. Nos.17527-17528/2018 GIRISH SAINI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

V. S. P. K. JUNIOR SCHOOL, AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASC & Mr.Kanishk Rana, Adv. for R-2 to 4 with Mr.Yogesh Kumar, DEO, Zone XI, in person. Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Adv. with Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi, Adv. for DDA.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 01.05.2018

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though respondent no.1/School has been allotted land by respondent no.5/DDA on concessional rates, it is not granting admission to the children from EWS category despite there being a mandate in the Right to Education Act. He submits that despite being aware of the aforesaid position, the respondent nos.2 to 5 have taken no corrective action to either direct respondent no.1 to grant admission to children in the EWS category or in the event of its failure to do so, to take steps to cancel respondent no.1’s lease.

¶11

At this stage, Mr.Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, submits that the only reason why the respondent no.2 did

¶12

not direct respondent no.1 to admit children from the EWS category, is that the said School has yet not been recognized and its application seeking recognition is pending consideration. He, however, concedes that irrespective of the School being recognized or not, since respondent no.1 was allotted land on concessional rates to run a School, it is under an obligation to grant admission to children under the EWS category. He submits that since the grievance of the petitioners had admittedly not been brought to the notice of respondent nos.2 to 4, no action could be taken by respondent no.2 against respondent no.1.

¶13

Having considered the stand taken by Mr.Aggarwal, I am of the considered opinion that respondent nos.2 to 4 ought to take appropriate action against respondent no.1 and pass an order giving directions to respondent no.1 to comply with the provisions of the Right to Education Act.

¶14

The respondents are, accordingly, directed to treat the present writ petition as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks from today.

¶15

Needless to say, in case the petitioners are still aggrieved, it will be open for the petitioners to take legal recourse as permissible under law.

¶16

The writ petition and applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶17

MAY 01, 2018/aa

¶18

REKHA PALLI, J

Girish Saini and Ors. v. v. S. P. K. Junior School, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Saini and Ors. v. v. S. P. K. Junior School, and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubh Impex Vs Union of India & Ors.

J.Ram Prasad Vs UOI & Ors.

Bhupinder Singh Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Raichel P Abraham Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limit

Supriti Bishwas & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Sarita Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Shashi Dua Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, New Delhi

Kapil Kumar Vs Kishan & Ors.

Birnagar Kabi Nabin Chandra Sen Teachers Training Institute Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Dice Education Society and Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Neelam Rani Kharb Vs Dy. Director (Education) and Ors.

Harkirat Kaur through Father Malkeet Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Alan G Vs Medical Council of India and Ors.