Dismissed

Dhan Raj Dhwan (as Guardian of Devansh Dhawan) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education & Anr.

Delhi HC15 May 2024W.P.(C)/1066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking admission in Class I based on a draw of lots for the 2022-23 Nursery/Pre-School academic year. It held that the petitioner’s right under the EWS category elapsed with that year, as the petition was filed after the academic session concluded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reserved liberty to apply for Class I admission for 2024-25 under EWS category; writ petition otherwise dismissed.

Dhan Raj Dhwan (as Guardian of Devansh Dhawan) Vs… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1066/2024

¶4

DHAN RAJ DHWAN (AS GUARDIAN OF DEVANSH DHAWAN) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ishan Sanghi, Ms. Sagrika Wadhwa and Ms. Poorvashi Kalra, Advs

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel (Civil) with Mr. Arun Panwar, Adv. for Respondent 1 Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga and Ms. Radhika Jain, Advs. for Respondent 2

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶8

¶9

JUDGMENT (ORAL) 15.05.2024

¶10

1. Devansh Dhawan, the son of the petitioner, applied to the Directorate of Education (DoE) for admission to the Nursery/PreSchool grade in the year 2022-2023 as a student belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS).

¶11

2. A computerised draw of lots was conducted by the DoE, and, on the basis thereof, the petitioner was shortlisted for admission to Nursery/Pre-School in the Respondent 2 school. The respondentschool, however, refused to admit him.

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Page 1 of 4 Digitally SignedBy:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 17.0 5.2024 14:34:03

¶15

Digitally Signed By:AJITWP(C) 1066/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 7.05.2024 14:35:03

¶16

3. The petitioner allowed the year 2022-2023 to elapse and filed

¶17

the present petition in this court only in January 2024.

¶18

4. The prayer in the petition is for a direction to the respondentschool to grant admission to the petitioner in Class I in accordance with the computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE.

¶19

5. The prayer is obviously misconceived. The computerised draw of lots by the DoE was for the academic year 2022-23, for which the petitioner was shortlisted for admission in the respondent-school in Nursery/Pre-School.

¶20

6. As such, there is no question of the petitioner having been eligible for admission to Class I in the academic session during which the present writ petition was filed. If anything, the petitioner’s entitlement would have only been for admission to KG/Pre-Primary.

¶21

7. That, however, can also not be granted as per the view that this Court has taken in a line of cases including Jiya v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School¹ , Ayesha Sankhla v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi² and Divyan Singh v. Directorate of Education³ .

¶22

8. I have held, in the said cases, that the benefit of allotment of an EWS candidate to an entry level class, consequent on a computerised

¶23

1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2126

¶24

2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3020

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Page 2 of 4 Digitally SignedBy:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 17.0 5.2024 14:34:03

¶28

Digitally Signed By:AJITWP(C) 1066/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 7.05.2024 14:35:03

¶29

draw of lots conducted by the DoE, elapses with the end of the academic year for which the draw of lots is conducted. If the student approaches the Court during that academic year, and the Court either directs provisional admission or reserves a seat for the student, then, even if the writ petition is taken up for hearing after the academic year is over, the student can be accommodated in the next class.

¶30

9. A student who, however, allows that academic year to elapse and approaches this Court after the end of the academic year, cannot derive any benefit from the outcome of draw of lots conducted by the DoE.

¶31

10. Ms. Sagarika Wadhwa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, prays that this Court had, in certain earlier cases, directed the DoE to consider allocating the petitioner to the age-appropriate class in the succeeding year.

¶32

11. I have, thereafter, also examined this position and held that such a direction cannot be granted as, for a succeeding year the petitioner would have to compete with all other EWS candidates for admission to the age-appropriate class.

¶33

12. The right with the petitioner, therefore, stands reserved for applying for admission in Class I in the year 2024-2025 under the EWS/freeship category as applicable. Any such application, if made,

¶34

3 Order dated 3 May 2024 in WP (C) 13316/2023 Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 17.0 5.2024 14:34:03

¶37

Digitally Signed By:AJITWP(C) 1066/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 7.05.2024 14:35:03

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

would be processed by the DoE in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that regard.

¶40

13. Reserving liberty with the petitioner to that extent, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶42

MAY 15, 2024 dsn

¶43

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Page 4 of 4 Digitally SignedBy:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 17.0 5.2024 14:34:03

¶47

Digitally Signed By:AJITWP(C) 1066/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 7.05.2024 14:35:03

Dhan Raj Dhwan (as Guardian of Devansh Dhawan) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhan Raj Dhwan (as Guardian of Devansh Dhawan) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education & Anr.

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

Indian National Migrant Workers Union Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indian National Migrant Workers Union Vs Union of India & Ors.

M P Power Management Company Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manoj Mago Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 & Ors.

Chuknoo Securities Limited through Its Director Sanjeev Agarwal Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28 Delhi & Ors.

Dr B R Ambedkar Institute of Dental Science and Hospital Vs Union of India

Bijender @ Jaipal Vs Munni Begam & Ors.

Abdul Basit Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University and Ors.

Firoza Begum Vs Bablu & Ors.

Praney Prakash Vs Sainik School Chhingchhip & Anr.

Master Luv Rathore Vs Maxfort School & Anr.