Carmel Convent School And Anr vs Uoi And Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 4062 Del

[40 to 45 & 47 to 51]
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ [40]     W.P.(C) 483/2011
%                                        Judgment dated 11.07.2012

CARMEL CONVENT SCHOOL AND ANR             ..... Petitioner
            Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with
                     Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit
                     Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates
                 versus
UOI AND ANR                                    ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Adv. for respndt no.1 Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+[41] W.P.(C) 1571/2012 ST. FRANCIS DE SALES SR SEC SCHOOL & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu and Mr.P.N. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+[42] W.P.(C) 815/2011 ST XAVIER'S SCHOOL AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjot Singh, Adv. for UOI Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+[43] W.P.(C) 1362/2011 ST. ANTHONY'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjot Singh, Adv. for UOI Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+ [44] W.P.(C) 1369/2011 ST MICHAEL'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjot Singh, Adv. for UOI Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+[45] W.P.(C) 1371/2011 ST. MARY'S SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjot Singh, Adv. for UOI Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD +[47] W.P.(C) 1887/2011 ST COLUMBA'S SCHOOL AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjot Singh, Adv. for UOI

+[48] W.P.(C) 1888/2011 CONVENT OF JESUS AND MARY AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary, Mr.Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjot Singh, Adv. for UOI Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+[49] W.P.(C) 2557/2011 MONTFORT SCHOOL AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Richir Mishra and Mr.Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for respondent, UOI Mr.H.S. Sachdeva and Mr.M.K. Mishra, advocates for respondent no.2 Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+[50] W.P.(C) 3555/2011 DON BOSCO SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Manisha Dhir, Ms.M. Jain and Ms.Priya Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD

+[51] W.P.(C) 8612/2011 NOTRE DAME SCHOOL AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.T.Singh Dev, Mr.Rohit Bhaija and Mr.Z. Anwar, Advocates versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.P.Pankaj for Mr.Sumit Chander, Advocate for respondent no.2 Mr.Amit Chadha, Mr.Gautam Bhasin, Advocate for respondent-UOI.

Mr.Nazmi Waziri and Mr.Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate for GNCTD CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ or directions against the respondents not to compel the petitioners to create quota/ reservations for 25% in its nursery admissions.

2. As the relief sought in the above said writ petitions is common, counsel for the parties submit that all the above said writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order. Accordingly, all the above said writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

3. For the sake of convenience facts of the petition [WP(C)No.483/2011] are being noticed. Petitioner in the instant case is a minority school/ institution, challenges the validity and legality of guidelines dated 23.11.2010, order dated 15.12.2010 and Notification dated 07.01.2011 passed by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, whereby the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, was made applicable to the petitioner/institution. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Article 15(5) of the Constitution makes it clear that respondents cannot stipulate any quota for admissions for any category in the admissions to be made by minority schools/ institutions; and provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 do not authorize respondents to act contrary to Article 15 (5) of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents were threatening petitioners, minority school for creating a quota of 25% of its seats for admissions for weaker sections. Hence, the act of the respondents is illegal, unconstitutional, ultravires and void-ab- initio and necessary directions are sought to be passed against the respondents.

4. Counsel for the parties have handed over a copy of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. U.O.I. & Anr. [WP(C)No.95/2010 decided on 12.04.2012]. Counsel for the petitioner submit that present writs are covered in facts and law by the decision rendered by the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that Right of Children to free and compulsory education guaranteed under Article 21A and RTE Act can be enforced against the schools defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, except unaided minority and non-minority schools not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet their expenses from the appropriate governments or local authorities. Counsel for the respondents do not dispute the same.

5. Accordingly, all the above said writ petitions [W.P.(C) Nos.483, 815, 1362, 1369, 1371, 1887, 1888, 2557,3555 & 8612/2011 & W.P.(C) 1571/2012] are allowed.

CM APPL. 994/2011 & CM APPL. 1656/2011 in WP(C)No.483/2011 CM APPL. 3460/2012 in WP(C)No.1571/2012 CM APPL. 1709/2011 in WP(C)No.815/2011 CM APPL. 2914/2011 in WP(C)No.1362/2011 CM APPL. 2926/2011 in WP(C)No.1369/2011 CM APPL. 2930/2011 in WP(C)No.1371/2011 CM APPL. 4028/2011 in WP(C)No.1887/2011 CM APPL. 4030/2011 in WP(C)No.1888/2011 CM APPL. 5435/2011 in WP(C)No.2557/2011 CM APPL. 7443/2011 in WP(C)No.3555/2011 CM APPL. 19461/2011 in WP(C)No.8612/2011

6. In view of the order passed in the writ petitions, present applications stand disposed of.

                                                           G.S.SISTANI, J
JULY    11, 2012
ssn