Single Judge dismissed writ petitions seeking admission for EWS category children for the 2017-18 academic session, ruling that relief is barred as admissions must conclude by December 31 under Delhi RCE Rules.
Writ petitions and connected applications dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
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.
. Ms.Urvi Mohan, Adv. for GNCTD.
| 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. |
MAHARAJA AGARSEN ADARSH VIDYALAYA Respondent Through Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, Adv. for R-2 to4.
W.P.(gNo.ll611/2017 &conn.
Page 2 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI. J (ORAL)
W.P.(qNo.ll611/2017&conn.
Page 3 of6
9-
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
W.P.(;C]No.ll611/2017&conn.
Page 4 of 6
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.
"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,
Page 5 of 6
W.P.CgNo.ll611/2017&conn.
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."
(REKHi^i!PALLI) JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2018 aa/ss
W.P.(C]No.ll611/2017&conn.
Page 6 of6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petitions filed requesting admission for academic session 2017-18 after the prescribed deadline were maintainable.
Whether granting admission after the academic year would be counterproductive to the purpose of EWS seat reservation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeraj Kumar v. Venkateshwar Global School & Ors.Relied on¶12
Neeraj Kumar v. Venkateshwar Global School & Ors. [WP(C) No. 7945/2016]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Arif and Ors.
Sachin Kumar
Bpikrat Lal
Knowledge and Cultural Trust and Ors.
AWAC International School
Kulachi Hansraj Model School and Ors.
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
