Delhi High Court
Himanshi (Minor) Through Father ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 20 July, 2016
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.07.2016
+ W.P.(C) 5609/2016 & CM No.23313/2016 (for directions)
HIMANSHI (MINOR) THROUGH FATHER RAVI KUMAR MEENA
..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kakar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocates for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Rakesh Agarwal with Mr. Pulkit Agarwal,
Advocates for respondent No.3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.3 to admit the
petitioner in class nursery for the session 2016-17.
2. It is contended that the petitioner, being eligible, had applied for
admission in class nursery under the Disadvantaged Group category (ST)
for the session 2016-17. The petitioner's name was listed in the
respondent No.3 school. When the petitioner approached the school for
admission, the admission was refused on the ground that the petitioner
could not produce a certificate issued by the Delhi Authorities.
3. The petitioner, who belongs to a Schedule Tribe, had produced the
certificate in the name of the father issued by the Tehsildar Sikari,
District Dausa, Rajasthan. The case of the petitioner was not considered
as the petitioner was not possessing ST certificate issued by the Delhi
authorities at the time of making the application.
4. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
Notification dated 07.01.2011, issued by the Education Department of the
respondent No.2, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1)
of Delhi Education Act, 1973 read with Rule 43 of the Delhi School
Education Rules, 1973 and under the Provisions of the Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents contend that since the
petitioner did not possess a certificate issued by the revenue authorities at
Delhi, either in her name or in the name of her parents, the petitioner was
not considered. The certificate produced was from the revenue authorities
at Rajasthan, which was not liable to be considered.
6. Condition 6 of the said Notification, stipulates the documents
required for admission on free seat. Sub condition (b) of the same reads
as under:-
"(b) For the admission of child belonging to
disadvantaged group - a certificate issued by a revenue
officer not below the rank of Tehsildar or any other
competent authority, in the name of child or his/her
parents shall be considered."
7. Condition 6(b) stipulates that for admission of a child belonging to
a disadvantaged group, a certificate issued by a Revenue Officer not
below the rank of Tehsildar or any other competent authority, in the name
of the child or his/her parents shall be considered.
8. In the case of the petitioner, certificate was produced in the name
of the father of the petitioner from the office of the Tehsildar, Sikari,
District Dausa, Rajasthan but the same was not considered. The
petitioner has now produced a certificate dated 27.05.2016, issued by the
Tehsildar in the Office of the District Magistrate, (Hauz Khas) South
District, in her name,. The said certificate had been issued based on the
schedule tribe certificate issued to the brother of the petitioner.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is eligible for admission under
the said category based on the said certificate. The only dispute is with
regard to the certificate, which was produced at the time of seeking
admission.
10. By interim order dated 06.06.2016, this Court had directed the
respondent No.2 to reserve one seat under the DG Category (ST).
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 confirms that such a seat has
been reserved and is available.
11. Condition 6(b) of the Notification dated 07.01.2011, issued by the
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, stipulates that a certificate issued by the Revenue
Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar in the name of the child or his/her
parents shall be considered. The condition does not stipulate that only
certificates issued by the Delhi authorities would be considered. The
respondents could not have denied admission to the petitioner on the said
ground. In any eventuality, the petitioner has now produced a certificate
issued by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar from
Delhi. The petitioner has satisfied all the requirements of the respondent
for seeking admission in the respondent No.3 school under the said
category.
12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to admit the petitioner in class nursery for the session 2016-2017
under the DG category (ST).
13. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 20, 2016
st
