Disposed¶22

Roshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CWP/13490/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-13490-2025; Roshan Singh v. State of Punjab; Right of Children for Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011; 2011 Rules; economically weaker section; disadvantaged group; reserved seats; school admission; CWP-PIL No.285 of 2024; K.S. Raju Legal Trust; Division Bench direction 19.02.2025; non-implementation; respondent No.2 or 3; speaking order; three weeks; petition not pressed; disposed; State of Punjab; Harsimran Singh Sethi J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; petition disposed of as not pressed on respondent-State's statement that the grievance will be examined and an appropriate speaking order passed within three weeks (admission under the 2011 Rules if feasible, otherwise reasons recorded and the order conveyed to the petitioner). ¶22

Roshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the children of the petitioner are entitled to admission in school against seats reserved for children belonging to the economically weaker section and disadvantaged group under the 2011 Rules. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Court recorded the statement of learned counsel for respondent-State that the petitioner's grievance will be looked into by respondent No.2 or 3 and an appropriate order passed within a period of three weeks; if admission of the children under the 2011 Rules is found feasible it will be granted, otherwise a speaking order recording due reasons will be passed and conveyed to the petitioner.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents, the petition, having been not pressed further, was disposed of and the Court ordered accordingly.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harsimran Singh Sethi J., oral, 13.05.2025), CWP-13490-2025: Writ petition by a father complaining that his children were not being admitted against seats reserved for children of the economically weaker section and disadvantaged group under the Right of Children for Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 ('2011 Rules'), despite a Division Bench direction dated 19.02.2025 in CWP-PIL No.285 of 2024 (K.S. Raju Legal Trust vs. State of Punjab and others). On notice, the Senior DAG for respondent-State stated that respondent No.2 or 3 would look into the grievance and pass an appropriate order within three weeks — granting admission under the 2011 Rules if found feasible, otherwise passing a speaking order with due reasons and conveying it to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, in view of this statement, sought disposal of the petition as not pressed; the Court ordered accordingly. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

CWP-13490-2025 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

115

¶4

CWP-13490-2025 Date of Decision :13.05.2025

Roshan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present: Mr. N.P.S. Hira, Advocate for the petitioner. (through V.C.)

¶12

Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶15

In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that his children are not being admitted in the school against the seats, which have been reserved for the children, who belong to the economical weaker section and disadvantaged group under the Right of Children for Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 2011 Rules’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP-PIL No.285 of 2024 titled as K.S. Raju Legal Trust vs. State of Punjab and others on 19.02.2025 has given a direction to grant the benefit of required seats to the children belonging to the weaker sections and disadvantaged group but the benefit of the said order is not being given to the children of the petitioner as they are not being given admission in the school under the 2011 Rules, which is

¶16

AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-13490-2025 -2-

¶18

causing prejudice to the petitioner.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the grievance of the petitioner will be looked into by respondent No.2 or 3 as the case may be, and appropriate order will be passed within a period of three weeks from today and in case, it is found feasible to grant admission to the children of the petitioner under the 2011 Rules, the same will be given otherwise, due reasons for not accepting the claim of the petitioner will be mentioned in the speaking order so passed, which order will be conveyed to the petitioner for his information and necessary action.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the statement made by learned counsel for respondents, present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further

¶22

6. Ordered accordingly.

¶23

May 13, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶24

AARTI SHARMA 2025.05.14 17:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Roshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hry. Vs Ajit Kumar & Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Vs the Presiding Officer Labour Court Bathinda etc.

M/S Lumax Industries Ltd. Vs Po,Lc etc.

Sohan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Poonam Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hisar and Anr.

Ton Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others