SHANA BANO (MINOR) vs DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.

$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3231/2024
SHANA BANO (MINOR) ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohak Bhadana, Adv.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
& ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. with Ms. Nikita Vir and Ms. Prashansa Sharma, Advs. for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel for DoE/GNCTD

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 04.03.2024

1. The petitioner is a student belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS). She applied, through her father, for admission to Class III in the Respondent 2 school (“the school”, hereinafter), for the academic year 2023-24. Consequent on computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE, she was communicated confirmation that she had been selected for admission in the school in Class III for the academic session 2023-24.

2. The petition avers that, on approaching the school, the school refused to grant admission to the petitioner. Unfortunately, the petitioner never chose to approach this Court at that time. She has allowed practically the entire year to pass by, merely by making representations. Now that the 2023-24 academic year is almost over, the petitioner has moved this Court praying that the school be directed to admit her in Class IV for academic year 2024-25.

3. This, in my view, is not possible. A student belonging to an EWS/DG category undoubtedly has preference to admission under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (RTE Act). In case the school is situated on land provided by public authorities at concessional rates, the school is also legally obligated to admit, in every grade, 25% of EWS students.

4. There is, however, a protocol prescribed for that purpose. The student concerned has to apply to the DoE as an EWS/DG student. The DoE then calls for data from the school regarding the number of general category and EWS vacancies available with them. On the basis of the said data, the DoE holds a computerised draw of lots. It is on the basis of that computerised draw of lots that the students are allocated to the school of their choice. The decision is communicated to the student concerned.

5. In such a case, I have already held, in para 59 of my judgment in Anjali Pandey v. DoE1, that the school cannot refuse to grant admission to the students.

6. However, it is for the student in such a situation to approach the court at that stage seeking judicial redressal. The entire scenario changes if the student allows the year to go by without seeking judicial redress, and then comes to court seeking admission to the next class in the same school.

7. That creates problems.

8. As in the present case, the petitioner has admittedly not been shortlisted by the DoE for admission to Class IV in the Respondent 2 school. In fact, the petitioner never applied for such admission.

9. On the other hand, there may be EWS students who have actually been shortlisted by the DoE for admission to class IV to the Respondent 2 school.

10. The petitioner, who has not been recommended by the DoE for admission to Class IV to the Respondent 2 school, cannot maintain a writ petition seeking a mandamus to Respondent 2 school to grant her such admission.

11. I have queried of learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner was seeking admission to Class III or Class IV of the Respondent 2 school. He submits, categorically, that the petitioner is seeking admission to Class IV.

12. In the absence of any decision by the DoE, allocating the petitioner admission to Class IV of the Respondent 2 school as an EWS candidate, and keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has not even applied for admission to the Respondent 2 school as an EWS candidate in class IV, this Court regrets that it is not in a position to grant the relief sought in the writ petition.

13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

A parting observation

14. I fail to understand why, in the case of a school which is, without justification, refusing to admit an EWS student who has been shortlisted for admission to the school consequent on computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE, the DoE does not take prompt action against the school in terms of the Delhi School Education Act and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

15. This Court is inundated with petitions, on a daily basis, of EWS/DG category children, who are shortlisted for admission to schools by the DoE, and not granted such admission by the school concerned.

16. In case the DoE were to take corrective action against such schools immediately, perhaps schools would also be less recalcitrant in that regard and the burden on courts would also decrease.

17. I may note that a coordinate Bench of this Court in Rameshwar Jha v. Richmond Global School2, has also advocated this course of action.

18. I have made this point of view known to Mr. Utkarsh Singh so that he could communicate it to the concerned authority and ensure that corrective action is taken at the appropriate stage.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J
MARCH 4, 2024
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 584
2 298 (2023) DLT 328
—————

————————————————————

—————

————————————————————

WP(C) 3231/2024 Page 2 of 5