Allowed

Jagriti Chopra (through Next Friend) v. Directorate of Education and Anr.

Delhi HC5 Aug 2026W.P.(C)/12094/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 regarding EWS admission denial for a Nursery class student, the Court held that it is empowered to modify relief to ensure justice. Despite the school complying with RTE obligations, the Court directed its reimbursement by the State to admit the petitioner, citing the disruption caused by transfer.

What did the court decide?

Respondent 1 to reimburse Respondent 2 for petitioner's admission; petitioner to remain in current school.

Jagriti Chopra (through Next Friend) Vs Directorate… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010560912024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 12094/2024 & CM APPL. 56580/2024

¶5

JAGRITI CHOPRA (THROUGH NEXT FRIEND)

¶6

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Ashima Chopra, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through: Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Panel Counsel with Ms. Chandrika Sachdeva, Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advs. Mr. Namit Suri and Ms. Tanya Sharma, Advs. for R-2

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶13

O R D E R % 05.08.2026

¶14

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to give admission to the petitioner in Nursery class/ pre-school in the academic session 2024-25 under the Economically Weaker Section (“EWS”) category and as per the EWS Scheme.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a student falling under

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:57:47

¶18

the EWS category and entitled to a seat under the mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act”).

¶19

The petitioner while applying for admission under the EWS category at the entry level class for the academic year 2024-2025, was given options to choose schools in a preferential order depending upon the distance between the residence of the child and the school. Accordingly, the petitioner chose Himalaya Public Senior Secondary School as her 1^st option and the respondent No. 2 school as her 2^nd option. Consequently, the Petitioner was allotted a seat in respondent No. 2 school under the said category for the academic session 2024-25 in the Nursery class/ preschool on 02.06.2024.

¶20

Since the respondent No. 2 school has denied admission to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶21

Mr. Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, draws my attention to Annexure A-7 filed with his counter affidavit, which is Minutes of Meeting dated 27.04.2024 and the same reads as under:

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:57:47

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:57:47

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:57:47

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:57:47

¶30

He further states that in this view of the matter, it is an admitted position that 12 additional students were allotted respondent No. 2 school, over and above the requirement of 7 students already admitted by respondent No. 2 in fulfillment of its obligation under the RTE Act.

¶31

He also states that as per the said minutes of the meeting as reproduced hereinabove, 11 students have already been accommodated and the petitioner is the only student who has not been accommodated so far. Hence, the petitioner should be accommodated in another school by the Directorate of Education.

¶32

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶33

In the factual matrix of the present case, I am of the view that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered/capable of modifying and altering the relief in order to ensure substantial justice between the parties.

¶34

The petitioner has been granted admission pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 02.09.2024 in respondent No. 2 school and has already been studying in the said school for the last 2 years.

¶35

At this stage, it is neither appropriate nor desirable especially in formative years of a child to effect any change in the school of the petitioner as the same will disrupt consistency and continuity in the schooling of the petitioner.

¶36

Even though the stand of respondent No. 2 that it has already met its obligation under the RTE Act is fair, I am of the view that nothing

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:57:47

¶39

prevents this Court from directing one more child to be included in the EWS quota of the respondent No. 2 school.

¶40

Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 shall comply with its obligation to reimburse the respondent No. 2 for the additional child i.e., the petitioner namely Jagriti Chopra.

¶41

The order is passed in the peculiar facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent.

¶42

With these directions, the petition is disposed of along with pending applications.

¶43

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶44

AUGUST 5, 2026/sp

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:57:47

Jagriti Chopra (through Next Friend) v. Directorate of Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagriti Chopra (through Next Friend) v. Directorate of Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Batra and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hakim Prasad Mehto Vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Ors.

Rajveer Singh Vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Ors.

Amit Kumar Mehndiratta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Naik Devendra Singh

Dcs Pg College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

M L College of Pharmacy & Anr. Vs Pharmacy Council of India

Global Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST New Delhi