A petitioner sought admission to a school for class PrePrimary under rules. The respondent government lawyer assured admission within three days without resorting to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without further action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~12
..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Khagesh B.Jha, Adv.
| versus | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI | AND ANR. | ... | .. Respo | ndent | |
| Through | Mr.Rame | sh | Singh, | S.C. | and |
| Mr.Gauta | m | Narayan, | ASC |
for |
|
| GNCTD. | |||||
| Mr.Ram | Ch | andraram, | OSD, | DOE, | |
| Zone-17, | Dis | tt-West. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 02.05.2018
Vide the present petition, the petitioner has inter alia sought a direction to respondent no.1 to ensure admission of the petitioner in respondent no.2/school with all other entitlements as permissible under the rules.
Mr. Ramesh Singh and Mr.Gautam Narayan, who appear on behalf of the respondent no.1 have, at the outset, contended that the petition is infructuous. They have handed over a copy of a letter dated 01.05.2018, written by the respondent no.2/school to the Deputy Director of Education, Zone-17, Distt-West-B, New Delhi, wherein it has been categorically stated that even though all the seats
under the EWS quota have already been filled, the school, on humanitarian grounds is willing to admit the petitioner in class PrePrimary by creating an extra seat beyond the prescribed quota.
A copy of the aforesaid letter has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who still insists that notice be issued to the respondent no.2 as he apprehends that respondent no.2 may not abide by the undertaking given by them in the letter.
In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner is wholly misconceived, since the said letter has been addressed to respondent no.1 and it is for the respondent no.1 to ensure that admission is granted to the petitioner in respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 assures the Court that subject to the petitioner submitting all the requisite documents and verification of the same, the petitioner would be granted admission in the respondent no.2 within three days from today.
In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the respondent no.1, I see no reason to entertain the present petition any further.
The petition alongwith pending applications stands disposed of in the above terms.
REKHA PALLI, J
MAY 02, 2018 sr
HARKIRAT KAUR THROUGH FATHER MALKEET SINGH
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
REKHA PALLI
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
