SHIVAM SINGLA vs THE PRINCIPAL DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10504/2023 & CM APPL. 40700/2023
SHIVAM SINGLA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.K. Upadhyay, Mr. Uday Bhan Sharma and Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Advs.
versus
THE PRINCIPAL DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Adv. for
R1.
Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel (Civil) for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 15.03.2024
1. The petitioner seeks, by means of this writ petition, a direction to the Respondent 1-school to grant final admission to the petitioner as a student belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in Nursery/Pre-school for the 2023-24 academic session, in terms of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with circulars issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE) from time to time.
2. The petitioner applied for admission of his daughter (Mishti) to Nursery/Pre-school as an EWS student for the academic session 2023-24.
3. Consequent to a computerised draw of lots which was conducted by the DoE, the petitioner was allotted admission to the respondent-school in Nursery/Pre-School.
4. As the respondent-school was demurring from admitting the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, seeking a mandamus to the school to grant admission to the petitioner in terms of the result of the computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE.
5. While issuing notice in this writ petition on 9 August 2023, this Court directed that the petitioner be granted provisional admission by the respondent-school in Nursery/Pre-school for the academic session 2023-24.
6. That order has admittedly been complied with. The petitioner is, therefore, presently studying in the respondent-School as an EWS student.
7. Mr. Yogesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent 1 school, submits that, given the number of general category students whom the school was actually able to admit in Nursery/Pre-school in 2023-24, the school has already admitted 25% of the said figure as EWS students. As the petitioner falls beyond the said 25%, he submits that he has no instructions to concede to regularisation of the petitioners admission, though it was granted on a provisional basis as per the interim order passed by this Court.
8. I have already opined, in para 59 of my judgment in Anjali Pandey v. State1, as under:
59. There is, however, another side to the proverbial coin. The DOE, each year, invites data from schools and works out the number of EWS/DG students which the school would have to admit to remain in compliance with the mandate of the RTE Act. The schools are given time to verify the data and report any errors to the DOE. If any school desires exemption, it can also apply to the DOE in that regard as per the procedure envisaged, setting out the reasons for its request. If, however, a school has neither chosen to seek exemption, nor reported any error to the DOE in respect of the computation of EWS/DG vacancies in a particular year within the time provided by the DOE in that regard, it would be bound to admit the student(s) who, as per the computerized draw of lot that follows, are allocated to its rolls. It cannot, then, turn round and question the computation, by the DOE, of the number of EWS students that it would have to admit that year.
9. There is a detailed exercise undertaken by the DoE before a computerised draw of lots is conducted for allotting EWS students to schools. The DoE places, on its website, details of the number of general category and EWS category seats available with the various schools. The schools are invited to respond to the said figures, if there is any error therein, within a stipulated time frame.
10. In case the schools do not respond, the figures reflected in the data placed by the DoE on the website are treated as correct. In such cases, I have held, in the afore-extracted passage from Anjali Pandey, that the school cannot refuse to grant admission to the petitioner even if the actual number of general category students which it is able to admit are less than the figure which was reflected on the website of the DoE.
11. This view, I may note, was also taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court earlier in Rameshwar Jha v. Richmond Global School2.
12. In the present case, Mr. Yogesh Kumar submits that, after the list of general and EWS category candidates available in various schools was uploaded by the DoE on 13 January 2023, for the academic session 2023-24, the school had applied within the time provided by the DoE, seeking reduction in the number of EWS seats allotted to the school. He submits that there was no response to the representation.
13. If the DoE does not respond to a legitimate request made by school for reducing the number of EWS seats reflected in the data uploaded by the DoE on its website, made within the time provided by DoE for representing, it creates a very uncomfortable situation. No doubt, in such cases, it would be advisable for the school concerned to move the court or seek other remedies to ensure that the representation is decided.
14. If the representation remains pending, and admission is granted to the student, that would not be fair to the school either.
15. That said, in the present case, the petitioner has been granted provisional admission by the Respondent 1 school as per the interim order passed by this Court on 9 August 2023.
16. In the interests of justice, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent-School to continue to provide education to the petitioner as an EWS student, in terms of the RTE Act and the circulars issued by the DoE in that regard.
17. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
18. However, the DoE is directed, henceforth, to strictly ensure that all representations made by schools for reduction of number of EWS/DG category seats for the ensuing academic year, if made within the time granted by the DoE in that regard, are disposed of, one way or the other, before the computerised draw of lots is held. There shall be strict compliance with this direction.
19. Mr. Utkarsh Singh undertakes to communicate this order to the highest officers in the DoE to ensure that this direction is complied with.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 15, 2024
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 584
2 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4438
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
WP (C) 10504/2023 Page 1 of 6