Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Jiya, a little over 7 ½ years of age, belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) seeking judicial intervention after repeated attempts to secure admission to Maharaja Agrasen Model School proved unsuccessful, despite being shortlisted for admission under the EWS category for the academic session 2022-23, the school refused to admit her. C. Hari Shankar, J., held that the petitioner’s right to education, as guaranteed by Article 21A of the Constitution and Section 12 of the RTE Act, was limited to free and compulsory education until the age of fourteen and does not entail provision of education in a specific school.
The Court stated that “Jiya is not, therefore, entitled to admission to Class II in the Respondent 2 school as sought by her. The said prayer has therefore, necessarily to be rejected. The DoE would, however, make every endeavour to ensure that Jiya is granted admission as an EWS student in Class II in some other school.”
The petitioner was born on 17-08-2016 and belongs to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of society. Her mother applied to the Directorate of Education (DoE) for her admission under the EWS category in Class I for the academic session 2022-23. Despite being shortlisted after a computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE, she was refused admission by Maharaja Agrasen Model School. Her mother made multiple attempts to secure her admission, visiting the school on several occasions and addressing representations to the DoE. However, all efforts to gain admission proved futile, leading to frustration and ultimately to the filing of a writ petition before the Court.
Counsel for petitioner argued that under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), and the circulars issued by the DoE, the school could not have denied admission to her after being shortlisted by the DoE. The counsel emphasized the petitioner’s entitlement to admission based on the draw of lots conducted by the DoE, as well as the subsequent directive from the DoE to admit her to the school. On the other hand, counsel for the school, defended its decision not to admit the petitioner, citing various legal precedents and procedural aspects. They argued that the petitioner’s case did not meet the requirements for admission to the subsequent academic year, and therefore, the directive from the DoE was not enforceable.
The Court meticulously analyzed the legal framework surrounding admissions under the EWS category, emphasizing the procedural requirements outlined in the RTE Act. It highlighted the significance of the application process, shortlisting, and allocation through a draw of lots by the DoE for each academic year. The Court observed that the petitioner had not applied for admission to Class II for the academic session 2023-24, and thus, there was no legal basis for her claim to admission in that year. It emphasized that the right to education under the RTE Act only guarantees education until the age of fourteen and does not entail admission to a specific school or class in perpetuity.
The Court remarked that “The right guaranteed to every child under Article 21A of the Constitution or under the RTE Act is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen. The State is only obligated to ensure that every child receives such education free of charge. The child, therefore, has a right only to receive such education. Article 21A does not, however, confer, on any child, a constitutional right to be educated in a particular school of her choice. That right would arise only if the child applies to the DoE as an EWS student for admission in the entry-level class for that year and is shortlisted therefor, in the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE.”
The Court further remarked that “Absent such application, holding of a computerized draw of lots and shortlisting of a child for admission to a particular class in a particular school, no right to seek such admission enures in favour of the child. The right available under Article 21A of the Constitution or under Section 12 of the RTE Act is only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not for being provided such education in a particular school.”
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to Class II in the Respondent 2 school for the subsequent academic year. However, recognizing the petitioner’s right to education, the Court instructed the DoE to make efforts to secure her admission as an EWS student in another suitable school within four weeks.
[Jiya v. Maharaja Agrasen Model School, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2126, decided on 22-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Mr. Manoj Kumar, and Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Pramod Gupta, Adv. with Ms. Nicole Gomez, Adv. and Ms. Adyanshi Kashyap, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Utkarsh Singh and Ms. Prasansha Sharma for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC (Civil) for DoE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
