Ashish Patel vs Edubridge International School ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10419 Bom

KVM

                                     1/9
                                                     42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 624 OF 2021

Ashish Patel                               )
Father of Master Rasesh Patel              )
Shiv Tapi B Wing, 3/33 HG Road,            )
Gamdevi, Mumbai 400 007                    )   ..... Petitioner
      VERSUS

1. Edubridge International School )
Wadilal A Patel Marg,             )
Grant Road East, Mumbai 400 007 )
(through the Principal)           )

2. Chankya Gyan Kendra,            )
301 B-Wing, Poonam Chambers, )
Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road)
Worli, Mumbai - 400 018            )
(thro' the Chairman)               )

3. The State of Maharashtra,      )
through Deputy Director of Education)
Mumbai Region, having office at )
Jawahar Bal Bhavan,               )
Netaji Subhash Road, Charni Road,)
Mumbai 400 004                    )

4. The Education Inspector,        )
Mumbai South Zone, E-Vita,         )
Impress Bldg., G.D.Ambekar Road,)
Parel Village, Parel, Mumbai 400 012)          ..... Respondents
Mr.C.R.Sadasivan, a/w. Mr.Anup Dhannawat for the Petitioner.
Mr.Pradeep Bakhru, a/w. Ms.Upasana Vasu i/b. M/s.Wadia Ghandy &
Co. for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.Milind More, Additional Government Pleader for the State -
Respondent nos. 3 and 4.




      ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2021 04:55:47 :::
 KVM

                                       2/9
                                                            42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

                                CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
                                       R.I.CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2021 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

JUDGMENT (PER R.D.DHANUKA, J) :-

Rule. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondent nos. 3

and 4. Mr.Bakhru, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2

waives service. By consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has prayed for an order and directions against the

respondent nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith grant admission to his son, Master

Rasesh Ashish Patel as per the allotment letter issued to the petitioner

by the competent authorities under the Right to Education Act, 2009 in

Standard I during the academic year 2020-21 or 2021-22.

3. The petitioner's son was issued a certificate of disability of

persons with autism by Nair Hospital on 16 th October, 2018. Sometime

in the year 2019, he petitioner applied for online admission of his son

under the Right to Education Act, 2009.

4. On 10th April, 2019, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 issued a letter of

allotment under the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009

KVM

42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

thereby granting admission to the petitioner in the respondent no.1

school for the 1st standard English Medium. It was clearly provided

that the applicant was to verify the documents before the committee

between 11th April, 2019 to 26th April, 2019. It is the case of the

petitioner that the competent authority vide letter dated 11th April, 2019

informed the respondent no.1 school directing the said school to grant

admission to the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Education

Act, 2009 in the said school after verifying the documents submitted

before the committee.

5. The petitioner made a representation to the Maharashtra State

Commission for Protection of Child Rights. Vide letter dated 14 th

October, 2019, the Maharashtra State Commission for Protection of

Child Rights addressed a letter to the Education Inspector inviting his

attention to the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009 and

directing the local Grievance Settlement Committee for redressal of the

complaint at the local level.

6. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the Education

Department vide letter dated 19th August, 2019 informing that though

the petitioner had visited the respondent no.1 school in the month of

August 2019, the Administrative Officer of the school refused to grant

KVM

42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

admission to the petitioner inspite of the letter of allotment issued by

the authority. The petitioner thus filed this writ petition.

7. Mr.Sadasivan, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our

attention to various documents annexed to the petition and would

submit that the respondent no.1 had included its name on the portal

under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and based on the name having

appeared on the portal, the competent authority had directed the

respondent no.1 to grant admission to the petitioner under the 25%

reservation under the Right to Education Act, 2009 as far back as on

10th April, 2019. He submits that though the petitioner had approached

the respondent no.1 school, no admission was granted to the son of the

petitioner by the respondent no.1.

8. It is submitted that the directives issued by the Education Officer

to grant admission under the 25% quota under the provisions of Right

to Education Act, 2009 is binding on the respondent no.1.

9. Mr.Bakhru, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other

hand would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted in

the respondent no.1 school on the ground that the respondent no.1

being a minority unaided educational institution managed by the

KVM

42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

respondent no.2 which is a public charitable trust. He submits that the

respondent no.2 had applied to the Government of Maharashtra,

Minorities Development Department under the provisions of the

National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004

for the status of Minority Educational Institution within the meaning of

section 2(g) of the said Act. The Government of Maharashtra has

conferred the respondent no.2 with the status of the minority

educational institution within the meaning of section 2(g) of the said

Act vide certificate dated 17th February, 2020.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the provisions of Right

to Education Act, 2009 does not apply to the minority educational

institution under the provisions of the National Commission for

Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. It is submitted that

though the State of Maharashtra had granted certificate in favour of the

respondent no.2 granting status of minority educational institution on

17th February, 2020, the said status would relate back to the date of

incorporation of the said institute. In support of this submission,

learned counsel invited our attention to the paragraph (6) of the

affidavit in reply and would rely upon the authorities cited therein.

KVM

42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

11. A perusal of the record indicates that the respondent no.2 has

been granted certificate of 'minority educational institution' within the

meaning of section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority

Educational Institutions Act, 2004 on 17th February, 2020. It is not in

dispute that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were issued a letter in favour of

the petitioner for granting admission to the son of the petitioner in the

respondent no.1 school much prior to the date of such certificate dated

17th February, 2020. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 were thus required to

comply with the said directives issued by the competent authority

within the time prescribed therein which was much prior to the said

date of the said certificate issued in favour of the respondent no.2

institute under the provisions of National Commission for Minority

Educational Institutions Act, 2004.

12. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 having committed default in not

complying with the directives issued by the Education Department

before the date of obtaining such certificate dated 17 th February, 2020

cannot be allowed to now urge that such certificate having been issued

subsequently, the default already committed by them stood condoned.

13. Upon raising a querry upon the learned counsel for the

respondent nos. 1 and 2 whether any other students had been admitted

KVM

42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 prior to the date of obtaining such

certificate dated 17th February, 2020 under the provisions of the Right

to Education Act, 2009, learned counsel fairly on instructions states

that four students were admitted prior to 17 th February, 2020 based on

the directives issued by the Education Department under the provisions

of the Right to Education Act, 2009.

14. Upon raising further querry with the learned counsel that if the

respondent nos. 1 and 2 would have complied with the directives

issued by the competent authority prior to the date of 17th February,

2020 for the academic year 2019-20 as directed by the Education

Department, whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2 could have cancelled

the admission of the son of the petitioner. learned counsel for the

respondent nos. 1 and 2 could not dispute that the respondent nos. 1

and 2 could not have cancelled the admission once granted to the

petitioner on the ground of minority status granted subsequently.

15. In our view, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to

take advantage of such certificate obtained after committing default in

complying with the directives which were already issued much prior to

the date of such certificate. The disobedience of the directives issued

by the Education Department cannot be condoned by obtaining

KVM

42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

certificate as minority education institution subsequently.

16. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the respondent

nos. 1 and 2 that the name of the respondent no.1 was included on the

portal by the authority on the premise that the respondent no.2 was not

conferred with any such minority status at that point of time is

concerned, we are inclined to accept the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the respondent no.1

was included on the portal not by the Education Department but by the

respondent no.1 on its own.

17. A perusal of the medical certificate annexed by the petitioner at

page 21 indicates that the recommendations made by the Department

of Psychiatry is that the son of the petitioner should continue in a

regular school with various further advise.

18. We accordingly direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to comply

with the directives issued by the Education Department on 11 th April,

2019 annexed at page 25 read with letter dated 10 th April, 2019 and to

grant admission to the son of the petitioner, Master Rasesh Ashish Patel

in the respondent no.1 school within one week from today on the

petitioner complying with the other legal requisitions, if any.

KVM

42 - WP 624 OF 2021.doc

19. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 prays for stay of

the operation of this order. Application for stay is rejected.

20. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made

absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

21. The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

[R.I.CHAGLA, J.]                              [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]