MASTER LAKSHAY vs ADRIEL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5978/2024
MASTER LAKSHAY ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms. Mamta Tandon and Ms. Prerna Tandon, Advocates.
Versus
ADRIEL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Swati Surbhi, Advocate, for Respondent 1.
Ms. Prasansha Sharma and Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocates, on behalf of Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, for DoE
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
% 29.04.2024
CM APPL. 24793/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5978/2024
3. This is yet another matter in which a child, who was shortlisted by the Directorate of Education (DoE) for admission to entry level class in the respondent-school for an earlier year (in this case 2022-2023), has allowed a year to pass and has come to the Court praying that the respondent-school be directed to admit the child in a later class. I have already taken a view that this is not possible in, among others, Jiya v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School1 and Ayesha Sankhla Through Guardian Kapil Kumar Sankhala v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi2.
4. The relevant paragraphs from the decision in Jiya may be reproduced thus:
22. To my mind, in order to maintain a writ petition seeking a mandamus to a school to admit a child as an EWS student at the entry level class in a particular school in any particular academic year, the child must, in the first instance, have applied to the DoE for admission to that class in that year as an EWS student and must have been shortlisted by the DoE for admission to the school concerned. It is only if the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE identifies a particular child as entitled to admission as an EWS student at the entry level class in a particular school, that the child acquires a right to such admission. The application, the shortlisting by the DoE and the allocation in favour of the child must be class-, school- and academic year-specific. It is only if, on the basis of the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE, the child is found entitled for admission as an EWS student to a particular entry level class, in a particular school, for a particular academic year, that the child can claim admission to that class in that school for that year.
*****
31. Each year constitutes a fresh academic session. A child, who, for whatever reason, is unable to secure admission into a school as an EWS candidate despite having been shortlisted therefor by the DoE, and allows that academic year to pass without initiating any legal action in that regard, cannot claim, that on the basis of the said shortlisting, that she or he has an enforceable right to admission in that school for the next academic year to the next higher class. There is no such automatic carry forward of the right which enures in favour of the student, consequent to the draw of lots conducted by the DoE for a particular academic year, to the next academic year, in that class or in any higher class. Rights, it must be appreciated, extinguish with time.
5. These findings apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. The petitioner was shortlisted by the DoE for admission to the respondent-school in 2022-2023. According to the averments in the writ petition, the school declined to grant admission to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner, however, allowed the academic year 2022-2023 to lapse and has approached this Court only in 2024-2025, seeking admission to Class II. The petitioner does not have any enforceable allotment by the DoE, entitling him to admission in Class II in the respondent-school.
7. As per the view taken by me in Jiya and Ayesha Sankhla, the petitioners right to admission in the respondent-school expired at the end of the academic year 2022-2023.
8. Accordingly, the Court regrets that it is in no position to grant relief to the petitioner. Needless to say, as the petitioner is an EWS/DG candidate, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for admission as an EWS/DG candidate for 2024-2025 under the freeship category. Any such application if made would be considered by the DoE, which would make all efforts to accommodate the petitioner in a neighbourhood school.
9. At the same time, this Court is now of the view that the schools which do not respond to the seat matrix as uploaded by the DoE with respect to the number of seats available for the ensuing academic year in the EWS and DG category at the entry level and thereafter, refuse to grant admission to students, who are shortlisted by the DoE, cannot be allowed to getaway. This attitude of schools is resulting in untold agony to students as well as considerable burden on the Courts.
10. Accordingly, the Court directs that DoE should examine whether in this present case any representation was made by the school for reduction of the number of EWS/DG seats as uploaded by the DoE on its website for 2022-2023 within the time granted by the DoE in that regard. If no such representation was made and the school, nonetheless, did not admit the petitioner, without any due cause, the DoE would proceed against the school in accordance with law.
11. The DoE would place on record an affidavit regarding this direction and due compliance therewith.
12. Renotify only for reporting of compliance of this direction on 25 July 2024.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
APRIL 29, 2024
rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2126
2 Order dated 26 April 2024 in W.P. (C) 5870/2024
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
WP(C) 5978/2024 Page 1 of 5