Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J.*, held that the principle of carrying forward of unfilled Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’)/Disadvantaged Group (‘DG’) category vacancies in a particular class in one year, to the next class in the next year in the same school, was legal and valid. The Court opined that the carrying forward of unfilled EWS/DG vacancies to the next class in the subsequent year did not infract the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘the RTE Act’) or any other legal provision. Admitting EWS/DG students to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of its entry level class was the statutory obligation of every school which falls within Section 2(n)(iv) of the RTE Act and if any school defaulted, there was nothing illegal in directing it to make up the deficit in the next higher class in the next year.
Background
Amitanjali, was an EWS student and had applied to the DOE for admission to a school as an EWS candidate, in 2021-2022. In a computerized draw of lots, she was found eligible for admission to Nursery/Pre-School in Sovereign School, Respondent 2 (‘the School’) in 2021, but the School denied her admission. Amitanjali again applied and was found eligible for admission to the KG/Pre-Primary class in the School for the academic session 2022-2023 but was again denied admission by the School. Undeterred, Amitanjali again applied, in 2023-2024, and was once again found eligible for admission to the School, this time in Class 1. On her being denied admission the third time by the School, with no reasons provided whatsoever, a petition was filed before this Court by her mother-petitioner, who prayed for issuance of mandamus to the School to admit Amitanjali, as an EWS student, for the academic year 2023-2024, or to direct the DOE to secure admission, to her, in a neighbouring school at the earliest.
By an interim order, this Court directed the School to provisionally admit Amitanjali in Class 1 in the 2023-2024 academic session as an EWS student, subject to the final outcome of the present petition and thus Amitanjali had, since, been granted provisional admission to the School in Class 1.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that if there were any unfilled EWS/DG pre-primary/KG vacancies of 2021-2022 in the School, the Directorate of Education (‘the DOE’) could indeed legitimately have required the School to fill up the said vacancies in Class I as carry forward vacancies, in addition to the EWS/DG vacancies which fell to its lot in Class 1 in the year 2022-2023.
The Court noted that Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act required a school, falling under Section 2(n)(iv) of the RTE Act, to admit, in Class 1, at least 25% of the strength of that class and the word “strength” had to be read as meaning the total number which the School was in a position to admit in that year. The Court further took note of the number of EWS/DG admissions made by the School from 2015-2016 to 2022-2023, and thus observed that the School never fell short of 25% of the general category admissions made by it in any year, which meant that in each year from 2015-2016 to 2022-2023, the School actually admitted EWS/DG students numbering over 25% of the strength of its class.
The Court opined that unaided schools functioned on fees, and the Court could not, in its zeal to protect the interests of the student, compromise on the fees which the unaided school could legitimately earn, as such fees would be its sole source of sustenance. It was for this reason that the RTE Act envisaged 25% as the minimum quota of EWS/DG students which an unaided school would have to admit in a year, reckoned as a percentage of the number of general category students that it admitted for that year. The Court opined that this was a statutory mandatory imperative, and if a School fell short of fulfilling this was imperative in a particular area, it could legitimately be directed to fill up the backlog in the next year in the next higher class. Where, however, there was in fact no shortage in the number of EWS/DG candidates which the school was required to admit, to fulfil the 25% limit, in a particular year, it would be not only unfair but also illegal to regard the school as having unfilled vacancies, which could be carried forward to next year. The carry forward principle could apply, therefore, only where there was a shortage in filling of EWS/DG vacancies in earlier years, reckoned as a percentage of the number of general category students that the school had admitted.
The Court opined that if a school had neither chosen to seek exemption, nor reported any error to the DOE in respect of the computation of EWS/DG vacancies in a particular year within the time provided by the DOE in that regard, it would be bound to admit student(s) who, as per the computerized draw of lot were allocated to its rolls. It could not, then, turn round and question the computation, by the DOE, of the number of EWS students that it would have to admit that year.
The Court noted that the School did not acquiesce to the directives of the DOE regarding the number of EWS students that it had to admit for 2023-2024, but, instead, challenged the communications dated 13-01-2023 and 14-03-2023 of the DOE. The DOE reversed its earlier decisions and granted waiver, to the School, from the requirement of admitting any EWS student against the backlog unfilled vacancies of previous years, in view of the fact that the School had not been able to admit its full strength of General category students in previous years, and had, in fact, admitted, each year, EWS/DG students to the extent of 25% of the General category students whom it admitted.
The Court opined that it would be completely opposed to the interests of Amitanjali to uproot her, mid-session, from the class in which she was presently studying and therefore held that Amitanjali should continue to study as an EWS student in Class 1 in the School till the end of the present academic year. Further, the Court held that the DOE shall ensure that Amitanjali was admitted to Class 2 in one of the neighbourhood schools in 2024-2025 as an EWS/DG candidate and continues to receive education in the said school till the age of 14, as per the provisions of the RTE Act. The DOE shall bear the fees for education of Amitanjali in accordance with the RTE Act.
The Court relied on Siddharth International Public School v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5272 and held that the principle of carry-forward of unfilled EWS/DG category vacancies in a particular class in one year, to the next class in the next year in the same school, was legal and valid. The Court opined that the carrying forward of unfilled EWS/DG vacancies to the next class in the subsequent year did not infract the RTE Act or any other legal provision. Admitting EWS/DG students to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of its entry level class was the statutory obligation of every school which falls within Section 2(n)(iv) of the RTE Act and if any school defaulted, there was nothing illegal in directing it to make up the deficit in the next higher class in the next year.
The Court stated that in the present case, there was actually no unfilled EWS/DG category vacancy in the previous year, reckoned as 25% of the General Category admissions made by the School, therefore, the principle of carry forward would not apply.
[Anjali Pandey v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 584, decided on 29-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Aayush Agarwala, Siddham Nahata, Advocates
For the Respondents: Namit Suri, Rameezueedin Raja, Purnima Singh, Tanya Sharma, Advocates
