Delhi High Court
Master Aditya Gaur (Minor) vs Rajkiya Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya ... on 13 July, 2010
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th July, 2010.
+ W.P.(C) No.4315/2010
%
MASTER ADITYA GAUR (MINOR) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal and Mr. J.B.
Prakash, Advocates.
Versus
RAJKIYA PRATIBHA VIKAS VIDYALAYA
NO.1 & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum with Ms. Sana
Ansari, Advocates for R-1 and 2.
Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate for
University.
Ms. Harsh Kumari for CIE
Experimental Basic School/R-4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 (Rajkiya
Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya No.1) run by the respondent no.2 (Government of
NCT of Delhi) to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of admission
in Class IX for the academic year 2010-2011.
2. The petitioner is a student of the respondent no.4 School (CIE
Experimental Basic School) run by the respondent no.3 Delhi University.
The said University School is till Class VIII only. The petitioner passed his
Class VIII examination from the University School in the academic year
2009-2010 and applied for admission test to the R.P.V.V. School. The
eligibility for registration and admission test to R.P.V.V. School advertised
by the said school is as under:
"Students should have studied continuously for two years in
Delhi Government/ Government aided / NDMC/ MCD / Delhi
Cantonment Board Schools in immediate preceding years and
should have obtained at least 60% marks in class V/VIII."
3. The petitioner has passed the Class VIII Examination with more than
60% marks and is thus eligible on that ground. The petitioner also appeared
in the written test held by R.P.V.V. School and the name of the petitioner
was shown at serial No.13 of the list of the selected candidates exhibited by
the R.P.V.V. School. However, notwithstanding the same, R.P.V.V. School
refused to admit the petitioner on the ground that the University School from
which the petitioner had passed his Class VIII examination was neither a
Delhi Government nor Government aided nor NDMC nor MCD nor Delhi
Cantonment Board School. Aggrieved from the said decision of R.P.V.V.
School, the present petition was filed.
4. Notice of the petition was issued. The counsel for the University
School has stated that the University School is funded entirely by the Delhi
University and which in turn gets its grants from the University Grants
Commission. It is stated that though under the Delhi School Education Act,
1973 the University School is classified as an unaided school but instead of
aid being provided to the University School directly by the Government, it is
being provided indirectly through the University Grants Commission. The
counsel for the University School has supported the case of the petitioner
contending that the students of the University School ought to be entitled to
admission in R.P.V.V. School.
5. The counsel for the R.P.V.V. School has opposed the petition. It is
stated that the Delhi Government, Government aided /NDMC/MCD/Delhi
Cantonmenta Board Schools are catering to the children belonging to weaker
sections of the society; that the Government is appointing best teachers for
its schools in order to prepare students from Government schools to excel in
studies; those children of such schools who show result and capability are
given further concentrated attention in R.P.V.V. School to bring them to the
level to compete with public school children in open competition
examinations. It is pleaded that the aim of R.P.V.V. School is to prepare
Government School children for higher academic achievements, excellence
in sports, success in competitive examinations and all round development of
their personality. The counsel argues that it is with such motive that the
admission criteria to R.P.V.V. School has been prescribed and limited to
those children who in the two years preceding their admission have studied
in Delhi Government/Government aided / NDMC/ MCD/ Delhi Cantonment
Board Schools.
6. In view of the aforesaid contention of the counsel for R.P.V.V.
School, this Court to satisfy itself that the petitioner did not belong to
economically strong strata and who could afford to study in a public school
rather than blocking a seat in the R.P.V.V. School directed the father of the
petitioner to file an affidavit in this regard. An affidavit has been filed from
which it is found that the petitioner belongs to the economically weaker
section of the society. The University School itself is a school attached to
the Central Institution of Education of the University of Delhi and which
Institute is imparting training for teachers. The University School appears to
have been set up to provide practical training to the students of Central
Institution of Education. The fee structure of the University School as well
as economic strata of the society whose children were studying in the
University Schools was inquired from the counsel for the University School.
The counsel informed that the University School does not charge any fee
and the children of the weak economic strata of the society are generally
enrolled in the University School.
7. In the aforesaid conspectus, the exclusion by the R.P.V.V. School of
the University School while laying down the eligibility criteria for admission
is not found to have any rational nexus to the purpose/objective sought to be
achieved. If the purpose/objective is to train in excellence those students
who are not able to afford public schools then the University School is found
to be no different from the Delhi Government / Government aided / NDMC /
MCD/Delhi Cantonment Board Schools and also fulfills the criteria. In fact
the counsel for the RPVV School states that if the petitioner is admitted for
two years in a Government School and for which he is entitled, after two
years he will be eligible for admission to R.P.V.V. School. It is also
contended that the petitioner has not challenged the Notification dated 16 th
June, 2010 of the Directorate of Education of Government of NCT of Delhi
prescribing such eligibility criteria for admission to R.P.V.V. School. A
copy of the said Notification has been filed alongwith the counter affidavit
of the R.P.V.V. School.
8. The petitioner has challenged the eligibility criteria prescribed by the
R.P.V.V. School and has rather pleaded and contended that he is covered by
the said eligibility criteria and that the eligibility criteria is being wrongly
interpreted by the school authorities. The Notification referred to is in fact
in the context of clause (p) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and merely records the eligibility criteria
for admission to the school. It is thus not as if the eligibility criteria has
been shown to be prescribed by any Statute or Rule. Once it is established
that there is no distinction between the Government or Government aided
School and the University School, the exclusion by the R.P.V.V. School of
the University School from the list of schools, students whereof are eligible
for admission to R.P.V.V. School is found to be arbitrary and discriminatory
and cannot be sustained.
9. The petition therefore succeeds. The respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e.
R.P.V.V. School are directed to, within one week of today, and subject to the
petitioner and his parents complying with all the necessary formalities, admit
the petition to the respondent no.1 R.P.V.V. School.
The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
13th July, 2010
M..
(Corrected and released on 20th July, 2010)
