Delhi High Court
Devendra Kumar And Anr. vs Bal Bharti Public School & Ors. on 6 April, 2018
$~18 to 21, 26 & 27.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 06.04.2018
+ W.P.(C) 11611/2017 & C.M. Nos.47282-83/2018
RADHA KRISHAN & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
BAL BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kamal Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Satyakam, ASC for
Directorate of Education.
+ W.P.(C) 495/2018
DEVENDRA KUMAR AND ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv. with
Mr.S.P. Pandey, Adv.
versus
BAL BHARTI PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kamal Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
Ms.Hetu Arora, Adv.
Mr.Satyakam, ASC with
Mr.Yogesh Kumar, for DEO
Zone XI for Directorate of
Education GNCTD.
+ W.P.(C) 28/2018 & C.M. No.104/2018
SH. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
DE INDIAN SCHOOL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Adv. with
Ms.Urvi Mohan, Adv. for
GNCTD.
+ W.P.(C) 409/2018 & C.M. Nos.1753-1754/2018
MOHD. ARIF AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
KULACHI HANSRAJ MODEL SCHOOL
AND ORS .... Respondents
Through Mr.Satyakam, ASC for
Directorate of Education.
+ W.P.(C) 1082/2018 & C.M. No.4524/2018
SACHIN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
ARWACHIN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. for
R-1.
Mr.Jawahar Raja, Adv. for R-2
to 4.
+ W.P.(C) 1087/2018 & C.M. No.4531/2018
BHARAT LAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K. Upadhyay, Adv.
versus
MAHARAJA AGARSEN ADARSH VIDYALAYA
..... Respondent
Through Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. for
R-1.
Mr.Rishikesh Kumar, Adv. for
R-2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present batch of writ petitions, the Petitioners, while
impugning the draw of lots held by the Directorate of Education in
respect of entry-level classes under EWS/DG Category admission in
various private unaided recognized schools, have inter alia prayed for
a direction to Respondents to grant admission to their wards in Class
Pre-primary/KG respectively in the EWS/DG Category in the
academic session 2017-18.
2. On 5th March, 2018, when the petitions were taken up for
consideration, learned counsel for the Respondents had, while placing
reliance on a decision dated 31.03.2017 of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar v. Venkateshwar Global
School & Ors. [WP(C) No. 7945/2016], contended that the present
petitions were not maintainable at this stage, as new admissions to the
entry level classes in Schools must take place on or before 31st
December of the academic year. In view of the aforesaid contention
raised on behalf of the Respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners
had sought time to examine the said decision and address arguments.
3. Today, learned counsel for the Petitioners while conceding that
the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge has attained finality,
contends that the circumstances in which the aforesaid decision was
passed, were materially different as the said case related to non-
submission of online applications within the prescribed time. He
submits that, in the present case, the petitioners had duly submitted the
online applications within the prescribed time but the respondents
have erroneously not considered their applications with an aim to
divert the EWS seats to General Category and, thus, contends that
merely because the petitioners have approached this Court after 31 st
December, 2017, they cannot be denied relief, once it is found that
their wards were entitled to get admission in the EWS category in the
academic year 2017-18 itself.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Satyakam and Ms. Hetu Arora, learned
counsels who appear for the respondents, submit that in the aforesaid
decision in the case of Neeraj Kumar (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench
has clearly held that in terms of the Delhi Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, the admission of a student to
a new class can be permitted only on or before 31st December of the
academic year. They further submit that the aforesaid decision of the
Single Judge has been brought to the notice of the Division Bench
dealing with W.P.(C) No. 3684/2013 and upon perusal of the same,
the Division Bench had clarified that its previous directions to the
contrary to admit students in February 2018 need not be complied
with. They, therefore, submit that in view of the admitted position that
the petitioners are seeking admission in the previous academic year of
2017-18, the present writ petitions are not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submit that in
order to ensure that the unfilled EWS seats are not converted to
general seats, the respondents have taken a considered decision that
the leftover EWS seats in classes Nursery and K.G., would be carried
forward and added in the seats available for the EWS seats in the next
higher classes namely KG and 1st. However, the unfilled seats of
class 1 in 2017-18, would be added to the available EWS seats for
Class 1 in the next academic year 2018-19 and, thus, there would be
no carry forward of seats to class II.
6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I find
that the decision of this Court in Neeraj Kumar (supra), with which I
respectfully agree, clearly bars grant of any relief to the petitioners at
this stage. The question of granting admission to the petitioners'
wards at this stage in the academic year of 2017-18, which has already
ended, would be totally dehors the Scheme of the Rules and would in
my view be counterproductive to the very purpose of reserving seats
for children belonging to the EWS category.
7. I can do no better than reproduce the observations of the Co-
ordinate Bench in paragraph 32 of the aforesaid decision, which reads
as under:-
"Further in terms of the Rules of 2011, the extended
period of admission is five months i.e 31st August of that
year. No doubt, the said period is not a fixed period,
inasmuch as a child can also be admitted thereafter, who
shall be eligible to complete the studies with the help of
special training as determined by the Head of the School.
Such a period need to be a reasonable period and cannot
be stretched till 31st March i.e the last date of the
academic year as an admission made on the last date of
the academic year, presupposes the child did not have the
occasion of learning/studies/training of that particular
class till that date. It is expected that child need to achieve
a particular level of learning/knowledge/training to
progress to the next higher level/class so as to be at par
with his peers/students of his age. The question is what
should be that date. I note, Rule 5 of the Rules of 2011,
which has been reproduced above, does indicate the
minimum period of at least three months of training be
given to a child. If that be so, an admission must take
place on or before 31st December of the academic year,
as from the date following that date i.e 1st January till
31st March of the academic year, the period is achieved.
In the cases in hand, the said period cannot be achieved
at this point of time. So the prayer of the petitioners for
grant of admission cannot be accepted on this ground as
well, apart from the ground that the petitioners/wards of
the petitioners have not submitted online application. The
writ petitions are dismissed."
8. Thus, while I find that the wards of the Petitioners cannot at this
belated stage be granted admission in the academic session 2017-18,
their apprehension that the unfilled EWS seats would be converted to
General Category, is wholly unfounded. In view of the categorical
statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the
unfilled EWS seats of 2017-18 would be added to the EWS vacancies
in academic session 2018-19 and would be filled only by EWS
candidates, the provisions of Delhi Right of Children to Free &
Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, would be duly taken care of and
no prejudice of any kind would be caused to the eligible EWS
candidates.
9. The writ petitions and applications are accordingly dismissed
with no order as to costs.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2018
aa/ss
