Delhi High Court
Astuti Through Father Dipak Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 October, 2017
$~9&10
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 30th October, 2017
+ W.P.(C)No.1023/2017 & CM No.4473/2016
ASTUTI THROUGH FATHER DIPAK KUMAR..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Khagesh Jha and
Ms. Slomita Rai, Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD with
Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv.
+ W.P.(C) 3606/2017 & CM No.20652/2017
JUSTICE FOR ALL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Khagesh B. Jha and
Ms. Slomita Rai, Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing
Counsel for GNCTD with
Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Gupta and Ms.
Tripti Gupta, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. Both these writ petitions lay a challenge to the notification
dated 18th December, 2015 whereby the Directorate of Education of
the Govt. Of NCT of Delhi has, in addition to the already prescribed
minimum age limit for admission in pre-school, pre-primary and class
1, prescribed an upper age for admission to entry level classes. It may
be noted that different prescriptions of upper ages have been made so
far as differently-abled children are concerned.
2. The notification carefully provides for further relaxation so far
as applications for children with mental disabilities are concerned.
The care which has been taken is evident from the prescriptions that
rejection of an application for admission to such a special child has to
be based on valid grounds and a speaking order has to be passed by
the Principal of the School. The notification of 18th December, 2015,
has envisaged the opportunity of two appeals to the aggrieved parents
of mentally disabled children to assail rejections.
3. We may note that when W.P.(C)No.3606/2017 first came up on
26th April, 2017, we had accepted the submission made by Mr.
Peeyoosh Kalra, the then Additional Standing Counsel for the
Government of NCT of Delhi and had passed the following directions
as interim measures :
"14. Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ld. Additional Standing
Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi, on
instructions from Mr. Yogesh Pratap, Deputy Director
(Education), GNCTD submits that without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of all the parties; purely as an
interim measure for this year alone and keeping in view
the urgency in the requirement of ensuring education to
those from the EWS/DG category, the Directorate of
Education would be willing to issue an office order for
raising the upper age admission in the EWS/DG category
for each of the classes by one year. As a result, the age
prescription to the classes would read as follows :
(i) Nursery : 3 - 5 years
(ii) K.G. : 4 - 6 years
(iii) 1st Class : 5 - 7 years
This is only so far as the admissions to the 25%
EWS/DG quota in the private recognized schools.
15. The above submission made on behalf of the
respondent no.1 is accepted. An office order in terms
thereof shall be issued forthwith. The pending
applications shall be immediately scrutinized, processed
and admissions granted as per prescribed procedure in
terms of Section 4 of the Right to Education Act.
16. So far as the remaining children are concerned, it is
submitted by Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ld. Additional Standing
Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi that their
applications would be scrutinized in terms of paras 10 to
14 of the order dated 5th August, 2010 in
W.P.(C)No.4953/2010, Kumari Uzma Bano & Anr. v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. These children will also be
accommodated in government schools.
Let the same be so done."
4. We may also note that keeping in view the importance of the
issues flagged in the notification and the requirement of maximum age
prescription at the entry age, on 26th April, 2017, we had also made the
following observations :
"11. It is submitted by Mr. Kamal Gupta, ld. counsel for
the respondent no.2 that an expert body constituted by the
Government of NCT of Delhi has considered the matter
and opined that it is unadvisable to accommodate over
aged children in junior classes and such an action, if
implemented, works to the disadvantage of and shall cause
prejudice to the very child who is admitted in a class for
which he or she is over aged.
Prima facie there appears to be substance in this
contention.
xxx xxx xxx
18. Given the nature of the grievance which have been
pointed out by ld. counsel for the petitioner, the over age
prescription made by the Government requires to be put in
the public domain. The respondents are directed to ensure
wide publicity of the opportunities available to the
children for admission in the schools and all necessary
information.
19. Given the fact that we have passed the order today,
which is within the time stipulations of the respondent
no.1, in case, the working of the order is delayed for any
reason, the candidature of the children shall not be
rejected on account of delay in processing the matter by
the respondents.
20. Judicial notice needs to be taken that the member of
the society, who would be the beneficiary of the allocation
of the 25% quota, may have transient residences or be
prone to periodic shifting, the respondentno.1 needs to
examine and put in place an education programme
meeting the needs of such children who by conventional
standards, may be over age or unable to maintain
academic continuity on account of movement of their
parents. This consideration be also placed before this
court on the next date."
5. We expect that the above directions have been complied with
by the respondent.
6. We were informed that this notification was premised on a
report of an expert body. We had accordingly so noted in our order
dated 26th April, 2017 in W.P.(C)No.3606/2017.
7. So far as admissions which have been made pursuant to the
interim orders passed by us are concerned, the same shall not be
disturbed.
8. In view of the above, no further orders are warranted in these
writ petitions.
9. In case, there is any difficulty in the working of the impugned
notification or our order, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an
application in these matters.
10. The writ petitions and all pending applications are disposed of
in the above terms.
Dasti to parties.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 30, 2017/kr
