Disposed

Anuj Kumar Sah through His Father Amit Sah v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Mar 2024W.P.(C)/8259/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, invoking the principle that tender-aged children are innocent sufferers, permitted the petitioner to complete his Nursery/Pre-School education in the adjoinng school for the current academic year without adjudicating on the delay in the legal remedy or claims of belated representation, while explicitly barring promotion to Class I.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to complete Nursery/Pre-School in the Respondent 2 School for the current academic year; no right to promotion to Class I.

Anuj Kumar Sah through His Father Amit Sah Vs… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~84

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8259/2023

¶4

ANUJ KUMAR SAH THROUGH HIS FATHER AMIT SAH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik & Mr. Rayadurgam Bharat, Advs. for Dr. Amit George, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh and Ms. Prasansha Sharma for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC (Civil) for DoE Mr. Pramod Gupta, Adv. with Dr. Sudershan Kumar, Adv. for R-2

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

O R D E R (O R A L) 19.03.2024

¶10

1. The petitioner, who is a student belonging to the economically weaker sections (EWS), had applied to the Directorate of Education (DoE) for admission to the Nursery/Pre-School class in the academic year 2021-2022.

¶11

2. The DoE held a computerized draw of lots, on the basis of which the petitioner was allotted admission to the Respondent 2 School (“the School”, hereinafter) in the Nursery/Pre-School class in 2021-2022.

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8259/2023 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2024 11:17:55

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

3. The case of the petitioner is that, when he approached the School, the School declined to admit him despite the outcome of computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE.

¶16

4. The petitioner, after over a year of having been informed that he was selected for admission to the Nursery/Pre-School in the School, addressed a representation on 13 December 2022 to the Deputy Director of Education.

¶17

5. It is only after the 2022-2023 academic session was also over that the petitioner approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the School to admit the petitioner in the academic session 2023-2024.

¶18

6. By order dated 20 December 2023, this Court directed the School to grant provisional Nursery/Pre-School admission to the petitioner.

¶19

7. The academic year is almost over.

¶20

8. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, without entering into the merits of the matter, his client would be satisfied if he is allowed to complete his education in Nursery/PreSchool in the Respondent 2 School in this academic year, but would not seek promotion to the next academic year in the Respondent 2 School in Class I.

¶21

9. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit, so averring.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8259/2023 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2024 11:17:55

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

10. Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the School, while seeking to point out that the first representation by the petitioner (through his father) was itself belated and that the petitioner has been absenting from school for some days, submits, fairly, that his client would not object to the petitioner completing his present academic year in Nursery/Pre-School in its institution, subject to the petitioner not seeking any right for continuing in the School in Class I.

¶26

11. In cases such as this, one prevailing consideration that the Court has to keep in mind is the fact that the children before the Court are innocents of tender age, who are quite incapable of subterfuge, suppression or the like. I deem it necessary to mention this because, in some cases, a defence is taken that there were errors in the application, or that multiple applications were filed, or that facts were suppressed. While each case in which such an allegation is made would undoubtedly have to be decided on its own facts, the Court has to realize that even if any blame is to be laid, it would be at the door of the parents rather than the children, who are innocent. The ultimate sufferer, in all such cases, is the child.

¶27

12. As such, without going into the aspect of whether the first representation was belated, or other such aspects, the Court disposes of this writ petition by permitting the petitioner to complete Nursery/Pre-School in the Respondent 2 School. The petitioner, shall not be entitled, by virtue of this order, to further promotion to Class 1 in the said school.

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8259/2023 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2024 11:17:55

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

13. The petition accordingly stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

¶32

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶33

MARCH 19, 2024/yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶34

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8259/2023 KUMAR Signing Da te:2 1.03.2024 11:17:55

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Anuj Kumar Sah through His Father Amit Sah v. Directorate of Education & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Kumar Sah through His Father Amit Sah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Mrs. Sumita Siddhartha Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 14 3 Delhi & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Malik Vs National Highway Authority of India & Ors.

MD Mustafa Raza Vs Superintendent Range 21 Central Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs Union Bank of India & Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Sh. Suresh Kumar

Pankaj Tyagi Vs the Secretary, for Registration of Political Parties, Election Commission of India

Snehlata Devi (as Guardian of Mishti) Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kumar Saurabh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Ranjeet Kaur Vs Sh Hari Chand

Yash (Minor) through His Mother Geeta Vs the Principal, Aadharshila Vidya Peeth School and Anr.

Niraj Kumar Vs Common University Entrance Test through Its Directors & Anr.

Ishaan Kumar Vs University of Delhi & Anr.