Case Title: BABY ANGEL versus SACHDEVA PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR.
Case No: W.P.(C) 2124/2024
Decided on: 29th February , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
Facts of the case
The case concerns a seven-year-old pupil named Baby Angel who is a member of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of society. Following the guidelines set forth by the Directorate of Education (DoE) and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), Baby Angel applied through her father for admission as an EWS student to Sachdeva Public School’s Class III [T3]. On March 14, 2023, the DoE held an electronic drawing of lots, and it was determined that Baby Angel qualified for enrollment as an EWS student in Sachdeva Public School’s Class III [T3]. Baby Angel was denied admittance to the school without any explanation, even though she was given a place by lot [T4]. The father of the petitioner made an appearance in person, and Mr. Utkarsh Singh spoke on behalf of the DoE in court [T3]. On February 14, 2024, the court sent out an emergency notice, and the school was given until that day to submit a counter-affidavit. The school did not show up in court or submit a counter-affidavit after receiving notification through dasti and regular process [T4].
Issues
1. Was Baby Angel, an EWS student, sent away from Sachdeva Public School even though the Directorate of Education (DoE) had assigned her a place through an electronic lotteries?
2. Did Sachdeva Public School neglect to give a justification for Baby Angel’s exclusion from EWS enrollment?
3. Did the court rule that pupils assigned to a school by a computerized lotteries had a right to admission and that the institution cannot refuse them entrance?
4. Did the court’s decision allow Baby Angel, the petitioner, to enroll in Class III as an EWS student?
5. Is Baby Angel to be educated in Sachdeva Public School in compliance with the RTE Act and any relevant DoE circulars?
Legal Provisions
1. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) – The petitioner’s application for admission to Sachdeva Public School’s Class III as an EWS student complies with the RTE Act’s provisions [T3].
2. The court’s interpretation of the RTE Act – The court stressed that pupils assigned to a school by the Department of Education through an automated lotteries are entitled to admission and that the school is not allowed to refuse them entrance [T4]. These legal safeguards safeguard the right to education and prevent students from the Economically Weaker Section from being arbitrarily denied entrance on the basis of their socioeconomic position.
Appellant Contentions
In compliance with the RTE Act and Directorate of Education (DoE) Circulars, Baby Angel, the petitioner, petitioned for admission as an Economic”lly Weaker Section (EWS) student to Sachdeva Public School’s Class III [T2]. Baby Angel was denied entrance to the school for no apparent reason, even though the DoE’s computerized draw of lots determined that she was eligible for enrollment [T4]. The father of the petitioner, speaking on behalf of Baby Angel, brought this case before the court, emphasizing the school’s denial of admission even though the student was chosen by lot [T4]. These claims serve as the foundation for the appellant’s argument, which asks the court to step in and guarantee Baby Angel’s admittance attend Sachdeva Public School in Class III as an EWS student, in accordance with the distribution determined by drawing lots.
Respondent Contentions
Despite being issued notice through dasti and regular process, Sachdeva Public School, the respondent, did not show up in court or submit a counter-affidavit [T4]. Consequently, the respondent in this instance has not raised any particular arguments or defenses. The petitioner’s claims regarding the denial of admission to Baby Angel, a student who was assigned a seat as an Economically Weaker Section (EWS) student through the Directorate of Education’s (DoE) computerized draw of lots, remain unanswered, as evidenced by the respondent’s lack of representation in court [T4].
Court Analysis and Judgement
Under the direction of Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar, the court considered the issue of Baby Angel, who was denied admission to Sachdeva Public School even though the Directorate of Education (DoE) had assigned her a seat by an electronic drawing of lots [T2]. The school failed to provide a counter-affidavit or an appearance in court, which the court recognized as a lack of response or defense to the petitioner’s accusations [T4]. Under such conditions, the petitioner’s eligibility to admission as an EWS student based on the allocation determined by a lot drawing was taken into consideration by the court [T3]. The court stressed how crucial it is to guarantee that children assigned to schools by computerized lotteries have the right to admission and that the schools cannot refuse to admit these kids [T4]. This idea is consistent with the provisions of the DoE’s EWS admissions directives [T3] and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). Consequently, Baby Angel’s writ petition was granted by the court, directing Sachdeva Public School to admit her as an EWS student to Class III. The court stipulated that Baby Angel would be educated in compliance with the RTE Act and any relevant DoE Circulars, and that she would have access to all resources offered to EWS pupils, such as school supplies, workbooks, and other essentials [T1]. Delivered on February 29, 2024, the verdict brought the case to a close with the relief requested by the petitioner is granted, guaranteeing her right to be admitted as an EWS student to Sachdeva Public School in accordance with the results of the DoE’s lotteries [T1].
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
Click here to view the judgement
