DHAN RAJ DHWAN (AS GUARDIAN OF DEVANSH DHAWAN) vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1066/2024
DHAN RAJ DHWAN (AS GUARDIAN OF DEVANSH DHAWAN) ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ishan Sanghi, Ms. Sagrika Wadhwa and Ms. Poorvashi Kalra, Advs
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel (Civil) with Mr. Arun Panwar, Adv. for Respondent 1
Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga and Ms. Radhika Jain, Advs. for Respondent 2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 15.05.2024
1. Devansh Dhawan, the son of the petitioner, applied to the Directorate of Education (DoE) for admission to the Nursery/Pre-School grade in the year 2022-2023 as a student belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS).
2. A computerised draw of lots was conducted by the DoE, and, on the basis thereof, the petitioner was shortlisted for admission to Nursery/Pre-School in the Respondent 2 school. The respondent-school, however, refused to admit him.
3. The petitioner allowed the year 2022-2023 to elapse and filed
the present petition in this court only in January 2024.
4. The prayer in the petition is for a direction to the respondent-school to grant admission to the petitioner in Class I in accordance with the computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE.
5. The prayer is obviously misconceived. The computerised draw of lots by the DoE was for the academic year 2022-23, for which the petitioner was shortlisted for admission in the respondent-school in Nursery/Pre-School.
6. As such, there is no question of the petitioner having been eligible for admission to Class I in the academic session during which the present writ petition was filed. If anything, the petitioners entitlement would have only been for admission to KG/Pre-Primary.
7. That, however, can also not be granted as per the view that this Court has taken in a line of cases including Jiya v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School1, Ayesha Sankhla v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi2 and Divyan Singh v. Directorate of Education3.
8. I have held, in the said cases, that the benefit of allotment of an EWS candidate to an entry level class, consequent on a computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE, elapses with the end of the academic year for which the draw of lots is conducted. If the student approaches the Court during that academic year, and the Court either directs provisional admission or reserves a seat for the student, then, even if the writ petition is taken up for hearing after the academic year is over, the student can be accommodated in the next class.
9. A student who, however, allows that academic year to elapse and approaches this Court after the end of the academic year, cannot derive any benefit from the outcome of draw of lots conducted by the DoE.
10. Ms. Sagarika Wadhwa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, prays that this Court had, in certain earlier cases, directed the DoE to consider allocating the petitioner to the age-appropriate class in the succeeding year.
11. I have, thereafter, also examined this position and held that such a direction cannot be granted as, for a succeeding year the petitioner would have to compete with all other EWS candidates for admission to the age-appropriate class.
12. The right with the petitioner, therefore, stands reserved for applying for admission in Class I in the year 2024-2025 under the EWS/freeship category as applicable. Any such application, if made, would be processed by the DoE in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that regard.
13. Reserving liberty with the petitioner to that extent, this writ petition is disposed of.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
MAY 15, 2024
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2126
2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3020
3 Order dated 3 May 2024 in WP (C) 13316/2023
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
WP(C) 1066/2024 Page 2 of 3