Delhi High Court: A writ petition by petitioner, a student belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’) seeking a mandamus to the Adriel High School, Respondent 1 school, to admit him in KG/Pre-primary in accordance with the outcome of the computerised draw of lots conducted by the Directorate of Education (‘DoE’), was allowed by C. Hari Shankar, J.*, while finalising and regularizing the provisional admission granted to the petitioner in Respondent 1 school.
Background
Petitioner, who belongs to the EWS had applied for admission to KG/Pre-primary in various schools, including Respondent 1, for the academic year 2023-24. The DoE conducted a draw of lots, where the petitioner was shortlisted for admission to Respondent 1 school. However, despite being selected through the draw of lots, Respondent 1 school refused admission to the petitioner, prompting the filing of the present writ petition seeking mandamus to admit the petitioner in KG/Pre-primary.
Decision and Analysis
The Court relied on Neeraj Kumar v. Venkateshwar Global School, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7842, which established that provisional admission cannot be granted after 31st December of an academic year. However, the Court noted that this principle was not universally upheld and was subject to interpretation.
The Court then referred to the order dated 18-2-2022 passed in Baby Nikshita v. DoE, W.P.(C) 1580 of 2022, where the Division Bench directed the DoE to issue fresh advertisements for admissions and to conduct draw of lots and allocate schools to the successful students. The Court noted that the order was passed on 18-2-2022, i.e., much after 31st December, indicating a shift in the understanding of the cut-off date for provisional admission.
The Court said that the 31st December cutoff date for provisional admissions should be considered binding until a superior court provided a different ruling.
Additionally, the Court stressed the importance of maintaining judicial consistency and the obligation for a Single Judge to adhere to the Division Bench decisions to maintain coherence in legal interpretation.
Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, and further directed that the provisional admission granted to the petitioner at Respondent 1 school to be confirmed as regular, and that the petitioner would continue to receive education as an EWS candidate under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with access to all associated benefits such as textbooks and uniforms.
[Arpit v. Adriel High School, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3152, Judgment dated 30-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the Petitioner: Vivek Kumar Tandon, Mamta Tandon, Prerna Tandon.
Advocates for Respondent: Swati Surbhi
Advocate for DoE: Utkarsh Singh, Nikita Vir, on behalf of Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel for DoE
