SANJEEV KUMAR vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & ORS.
$~117
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5857/2023
SANJEEV KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Paul Kumar Kalai and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advs.
versus
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC (C) for DoE
Mr. Aayushi Jain, Mr. Mohit Gupta and Mr. Rashi Aggarwal, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 03.04.2024
W.P.(C) 5857/2023
1. The petitioner, who at the time of filing this writ petition was about 6½ years old, had applied through his father for admission as a candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of society to the KG/Pre-primary class in 2021-2022. A computerized draw of lots was conducted by the Directorate of Education (DoE), whereafter the petitioner was found eligible for admission to the Respondent 2-school. The petitioner claims to have approached the respondent-school for admission in accordance with the outcome of the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE, but that the respondent-school refused to grant admission to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner also claims to have instituted the present petition only in April 2023, by which time the 2021-2022 academic session had come to an end, only because he was given repeated assurances that he would be granted admission, if not to the KG/Pre-primary Class, then to the next class in the respondent-school. No document, manifesting any such assurance is, however, placed on record.
3. What is before this Court, therefore, is a claim by a student, who was shortlisted by the DoE for admission to KG/Pre-primary in the respondent school in academic year 2021-22, seeking a mandamus to the school to appoint him to Class II in the 2023-2024 academic session.
4. As of today, even the 2023-2024 academic session has come to an end.
5. That apart, I have already held in Jiya v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School1, that a student who is shortlisted by the DoE for admission to a particular school in a particular class in a particular year as an EWS student, whether under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ( hereinafter the RTE Act) or in the Freeship category (applicable to schools built on land provided at concessional rates with a clause requiring the school to admit, each year and in all classes, 25% of the strength as EWS students), and who is denied admission by the school, can ventilate his right to such admission by approaching the Court only if he does so within that academic year. This is for the simple reason that, while the RTE Act provides a right to education to every student till the age of 14, that right is only to obtain education and not to be educated by a school of ones choice. The right to be educated in a school on ones choice would arise only if, consequent on an application made by the candidate for that purpose, the candidate is found eligible for admission to that school for that year consequent on a draw of lots conducted by the DoE. When the year is over, the right vanishes. If the student desires admission as an EWS candidate in the next year to the next higher class, the student has necessarily to suffer the rigour of a fresh admission and a fresh computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE. On the basis of the outcome of the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE for one year, a candidate cannot obtain a right in perpetuity, to the prejudice of others, who may actually apply for EWS admissions in the succeeding year and have a legitimate claim to admission.
6. There is no distinction between the situation either of the fact or in law, which was before this Court in Jiya, and in the present case.
7. As in the case of Jiya, the petitioner in the present case was shortlisted by the DoE for admission to KG/Pre-primary in the respondent school for the academic year 2021-2022. The petitioner, however, did not approach this Court till mid 2023 by which time the academic year 2021-2022 and even 2022-2023 had come to an end.
8. The petitioner, therefore, cannot today be granted admission as an EWS candidate in 2023-2024, on the basis of the shortlisting conducted by the DoE in 2021-2022, finding the petitioner eligible for admission to the KG/Pre-primary in that year.
9. The case is, therefore, fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Jiya.
10. Despite repeated queries from the Court in this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to distinguish the case in Jiya from the present case.
11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
CM APPL. 10357/2024
12. The application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 3, 2024
rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 2024 SCC Del 2126
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
WP.(C) 5857/2023 Page 1 of 4