Delhi High Court
Master Vansh vs Vendkateshwara Global School & ... on 16 July, 2018
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 255/2018 and CM Nos. 18613-18615/2018
Date of decision: 16th July, 2018
MASTER VANSH ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Khagesh K. Jha, Adv.
versus
VENDKATESHWARA GLOBAL
SCHOOL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC for
GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Having heard counsel for the appellant we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
dated 31.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 9069/2016.
2. Impugned decision decides several writ petitions and has
referred to different provisions of the Right to Education Act,
2009, notification dated 07.01.2011 and circular dated
29.12.2015 issued by the Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi.
3. Circular dated 29.12.2015 prescribed guidelines for
admission of Economically Weaker Section
(EWS)/Disadvantaged Group (DG) category at entry level
classes in private unaided recognized schools of Delhi for the
session 2016-17.
4. In terms the said circular, online system was introduced
from 01.01.2016 for academic session 2016-17 for students of
EWS/DG category. Parents/students could not apply/ and
approach the school directly for admission in EWS/DG
category.
5. Impugned judgment refers to the benefits and advantages
of the online system, as this had removed and effectively
checked malpractices and nepotism in giving admission to EWS
/DG category students.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant on being questioned
states that the parents of the appellant had not applied online for
admission. It is also stated that the circular dated 29.12.2015
was not challenged in the writ petition preferred by them.
7. In these circumstances, we do not think that the appellant
is entitled to any relief. On the basis of online applications, a
gradation or seniority list on basis of draw of lots was prepared.
EWS/DG category applicants were granted admission in
different schools as per their position in the list. In view of large
numbers, all applicants could not be accommodated. We would
hesitate and not pass any order, ignoring and bye-passing the
waiting list, to favour the appellant. This would be unfair and
unjust to others. It would violate their rights.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that
'Vendkateshwara Global School' was not included in the list of
eligible schools uploaded by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
This may be correct but later on the said school was included in
the list of schools to which admissions under Right to
Education Act were to be made. Aforesaid argument cannot be
a ground and reason to allow the appeal ignoring and turning a
blind eye to the claim of the online applicants who were eligible
and have not secured admission due to their seniority and rank.
9. There is delay of 337 days in filing of the present appeal.
Civil Misc. Application No. 18614/2018 filed by the appellant
for condonation of delay states that the appellant being a poor
person was continuously trying to get help to pursue the case
and it took one year to find an advocate. Normally for these
reasons, we would have condoned the delay in filing of the
appeal. However we have to record that lapse of time in the
present case, would be of consequence. Academic session
2017-18 has already ended.
10. Appellant it is stated has applied for admission for the
session 2018-19. Impugned decision, it is obvious would not be
a ground to reject the online application for 2017-18. Appellant
would be considered as per Rules and circular.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage submits
that they would like to challenge the circular dated 29.12.2015
and states that the circular violates or was in conflict with the
notification dated 07.11.2007. Appellant, is at liberty to do so in
accordance with law.
12. Recording the aforesaid, we dismiss the present appeal
without any order to costs. Other pending applications are
disposed of as being infructuous. We clarify that we have not
examined issues which were subject matter of other writ
petitions.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
JULY 16, 2018
B
