Dismissed

Master Chhayank through His Father Sudhir v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/4538/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This brief oral order dismissed the writ petition as the relevant academic session had ended. The Court refused to create a rule adjusting the petitioner from KG to Class I of another school and directed the petitioner to compete for Class I admission in the next session through the lottery.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply for Class I admission in 2024-2025 session; relief for immediate admission denied.

Master Chhayank through His Father Sudhir Vs… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4538/2024

¶4

MASTER CHHAYANK THROUGH HIS FATHER SUDHIR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik, Mr. Adhishwar Suri, Mr. Rayadurgam Bharat and Ms. Suparana Jain, Advs. for Dr. Amit George, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC (C) for DoE

¶7

Ms. Shikha Sharma, Adv. for respondent school

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

JUDGMENT (O R A L) 02.04.2024

¶11

W.P.(C) 4538/2024

¶12

1. The petitioner, through his father, had applied with the Directorate of Education (DoE) as a student belonging to the Disadvantaged Group (DG) for admission to KG/Pre-primary for the academic session 2023-2024. A computerized draw of lots was conducted by the DoE. The petitioner was found entitled to be admitted to KG/Pre-primary for the academic session 2023-2024 in the Respondent 2 school.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 4538/2024 Signing Da te:0 3.04.2024 17:08:39

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

2. As the respondent school refused to admit the petitioner, the present writ petition has been instituted seeking a mandamus to Respondent 2 school to admit the petitioner.

¶17

3. However, the petition has come up for hearing after the 20232024 academic session has come to an end.

¶18

4. Mr. Bhaumik, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that, though it may not be possible to grant the relief sought in the petition as the 2023-2024 academic session has come to an end, the Court should direct the DoE to make every endeavour to ensure that the petitioner is granted admission as a DG student in Class I in some other school. He cites, for this purpose, the judgment of this Bench in Jiya v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School¹ .

¶19

5. Though it is true that, in one or two cases, this Bench has passed such orders, this cannot be made a rule. If the Court is to routinely pass orders directing the DoE to adjust the petitioner for the next academic session in some other school, they would end up blocking the chances of others who may have made similar applications under the DG category for Class I for the next academic year.

¶20

6. This would ultimately be prejudicial to the interest of others and cannot, therefore, be the outcome of the order passed by this Court.

¶21

7. For the next (2024-2025) academic year, in Class I, the right of the petitioner would only be to consideration of his case at par with

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 4538/2024 Signing Da te:0 3.04.2024 17:08:39

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

other DG aspirants who seek admission for the 2024-2025 academic session; in the draw of lots to be conducted by the DoE in that regard.

¶26

8. Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply as a DG candidate for admission to Class I for the 2024-2025 academic session and, if such application is made, the DoE would endeavour to secure admission to the petitioner, needless to say, after following the procedure prescribed in that regard.

¶27

9. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

CM APPL.18605/2024 and CM APPL.18606/2024

¶29

10. These applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶30

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶31

APRIL 2, 2024 rb

¶32

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶33

Signature Not Verified1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2126

¶34

Digitally Signed By: AJIT KUMAR W.P.(C) 4538/2024 Signing Da te:0 3.04.2024 17:08:39

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Master Chhayank through His Father Sudhir v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Chhayank through His Father Sudhir v. 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

Shri Swami Samarth Engineers Ltd. Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Evalueserve Com Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1) Delhi &Ors

Naveen Kumar Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi Adn Anr.

Vicky and Anr. Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi and Anr.

Susheel Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Sunoj Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

North India College of Higher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Devansh Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Dr. Ompal Shokeen Vs the Indian Law Institute & Anr.

Laxman Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

All India Khilafat Committees College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Miss Ishika Yadav Vs Mount Olivet Senior Secondary School and Others