Case Title: MASTER HITESH VERMA versus DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
Case No: W.P.(C) 2129/2024
Decided on: 29th February , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
Facts of the case
The case involves a student, Master Hitesh Verma, who belongs to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. He applied for admission as a Disadvantaged Group (DG) category candidate to Class I in a school referred to as Respondent 1. The Department of Education (DoE) conducted a computerized draw of lots, and the petitioner’s name was shortlisted for admission to Class I in the Respondent 1 school [T5]. However, despite being informed of this allotment, the Respondent 1 school declined to admit the petitioner. The petitioner then sought judicial redress by approaching the court to direct the school to admit him in Class II [T3]. It was noted that the petitioner did not have any allotment by the DoE in Class II at the Respondent 1 school. The petitioner was determined to be eligible for admission to Class I, not Class II, by the automated lotto draw. The court stressed that the DoE’s allocation following the drawing of lots in compliance with the RTE Act and DoE Circulars [T2] is the only source of the entitlement to admission as an EWS/DG student, which is enforced by a writ of mandamus. Disparities in the information submitted by the petitioner’s family when applying for privileged admission as a student in the DG category were brought to light by the ruling. The school’s counsel brought attention to these differences [T3]. In the end, the petition was dismissed by the court, which found that the petitioner lacked an enforceable right to be admitted to Respondent 1 school’s Class II. The ruling stressed that a remedy must stem from a right, and that granting admission on the basis of a mandamus without an enforceable right would harm other students who have valid claims [T4].
Issues
1. Based on the Department of Education’s (DoE) allocation for Class I as a student in the Disadvantaged Group (DG)/Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, was the petitioner eligible for admission to Respondent 1’s Class II?
2. Did the inconsistencies in the information submitted by the petitioner when requesting preferential admission as a student in the DG category affect the legitimacy of the Class II admission claim?
3. Considering the lack of a DoE allotment for that class, did the petitioner lack an enforceable right to apply for admission to Respondent 1 school’s Class II?
4. Did the petitioner’s father’s inability to submit an application for the ward’s admission to Class II request for admission to that class involve any schools?
5. In light of the circumstances, the law, and the lack of an enforceable right to such entry, was the petition for admission to Class II properly dismissed?
Legal Provisions
Right to Education (RTE) Act: Known colloquially as the RTE Act, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, establishes free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14. It also contains clauses pertaining to children from disadvantaged groups (DG) and economically weaker sections (EWS) being admitted to private schools. Computerized Draw of Lots: To allocate seats for EWS/DG category pupils in schools, the Department of Education (DoE) uses a computerized draw of lots. Fairness and openness in the admissions process are guaranteed by this procedure. Writ of Mandamus: A writ of mandamus is a type of legal remedy that can be used to force a public authority to carry out an obligation that falls under its legal purview. In the present instance, the DoE’s allotment following the computerized draw of lots is what determines a student’s eligibility for admission as an EWS/DG category student, which is enforced through a writ of mandamus. Judicial Redress: If a student is given a seat as an EWS/DG category candidate but is denied admission, they may file a judicial redress claim. The RTE Act’s requirements and any applicable DoE circulars can be followed by the court to guarantee that students’ rights are respected. These laws’ provisions
Appellant Contentions
Master Hitesh Verma, the appellant, brought up issues with Respondent 1 school’s denial of his admission to Class II through his father. The appellant’s main arguments are as follows: Application Form Errors: The petitioner’s father argued that his wife’s mistakes in filling out the form were the cause of the disparities in the information provided, including the child’s name and other data [T2]. Alleged Denial of Admission: The petitioner claimed that the Respondent 1 school refused to accept him even after informing him of his placement in Class I after the DoE’s computerized drawing of lots. The petitioner’s denial prompted them to pursue legal remedy for Class II [T5] entrance. Seeking Relief through the Court: The petitioner went to the Respondent 1 school to ask for permission to be admitted to Class II. The argument was that, after the DoE conducted a draw of lots, the petitioner ought to be admitted according to his eligibility as an EWS/DG category student [T3]. Upholding Rights under RTE Act: The appellant most likely contended that the denial of admission to Class II violated the rights guaranteed by the Right to Education (RTE) Act, which requires free and compulsory education for children from underprivileged backgrounds, even though the student was given a seat in Class I as an EWS/DG category member. These claims are a reflection of the petitioner’s attempts to claim admittance as a student in the EWS/DG category and pursue compensation for the purported refusal of Class II admission at the Respondent 1 institution.
Respondent Contentions
The petitioner’s claims were met with a number of arguments from the Respondent 1 school, as represented by Mr. Yogesh Kumar, the school’s lawyer. The respondent 1 school’s main arguments are as follows: Differences in Application Information: The Respondent 1 school identified a number of differences between the information submitted by the petitioner in order to be considered for preferential admission as a student in the Disadvantaged Group (DG) category and the information included in the writ petition. The child’s name, the type of DG category, the certificate number, the date of issue, and the phone number were among the disparities [T5]. Absence of Class II Allotment: It was brought to light that the Department of Education (DoE) had not granted the petitioner any space at the Respondent for Class II admission one educational institution. According to the DoE’s automated lot drawing, the petitioner’s claim to admission was limited to Class I, and there was no such entitlement for Class II [T3]. Lack of Enforceable Right: Because the allotment was made for Class I and no additional allotment was given for Class II, the Respondent 1 school probably claimed that the petitioner did not have an enforceable right to admission in Class II at the school. As a result, the school might have argued that the petitioner’s request for admittance to Class II lacked legal support [T4]. Emphasis on right Procedure: It’s possible that Respondent 1 school stressed how important it is to follow the guidelines and right processes for the admission of pupils in the EWS/DG category, as specified by the RTE Act and the DoE’s guidelines. The petitioner’s request for admission to Class II may not have been in line with the established procedures for allocation and admission, according to the school’s stance. These arguments offer insight into the arguments made to refute the petitioner’s request for admission to the school’s Class II, as well as the position taken by Respondent 1 school in response to the petitioner’s assertions.
Court Analysis and Judgement
Hon. Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar considered the arguments put up by the Respondent 1 school and the petitioner. The following are the main conclusions from the court’s analysis and ruling: Allotment by DoE: The court stressed that the Department of Education’s (DoE) computerized draw of lots, which was carried out in compliance with the Right to Education (RTE) Act and pertinent circulars [T1], must make an allotment in the student’s favor before the student can be admitted as a Disadvantaged Group (DG) or Economically Weaker Section (EWS) student. This right can be enforced through a writ of mandamus. Insufficient Allocation for Class II: The court observed that the petitioner was determined to be eligible to be admitted to Respondent 1 School’s Class I through a lottery administered by the Department of Education. Class II, on the other hand, had no allotment, and the petitioner lacked an enforceable right of admission [T2]. Discrepancies and Absence of Application: The petitioner submitted inconsistent information while applying for preferred admission as a student in the DG category, and the court recognized this. The petitioner’s claim to admission to Class II was further undermined by the fact that her father did not submit an application for admission to any institution [T3]. Judicial remedy and Remedies: The court emphasized how crucial it is to pursue judicial remedy as soon as possible, particularly in cases where a student is refused entry even though their seat was chosen at random. It may be detrimental to the legal claims of other students who were shortlisted for the class to issue a writ of mandamus for admission to a course for which no allocation was made [T5]. Petition Dismissed: The court denied the petition for Respondent 1 school’s Class II admission based on an examination of the facts and applicable laws. No decision regarding expenses was granted, and the ruling declared that the petitioner lacked an enforceable right to such admission [T2]. Overall, the court’s reasoning concentrated on the importance of the DoE’s allocation, the procedural requirements for admission under the RTE Act, and the necessity of prompt legal recourse in instances where admission has been denied in order to protect the equity of the EWS/DG category students’ admissions procedure.
“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
