Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, on behalf of children belonging to the Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantaged Group (‘EWS/DG’) category, who were denied admission in respondent School (‘the school’) on the premise that the Junior Wing and Senior Wing of the School were distinct entities, and allotment made by the Directorate of Education (‘DoE’) for the Junior Wing did not extend to the Senior Wing. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that a seamless transition from one class to another was important in ensuring that the dignity of the children and their parents was not compromised. Thus, the Court directed the DoE to merge/consolidate the different School Identification Numbers, assigned to the Junior and Senior Wing of the same schools, run by the same educational societies, into one single School Identification Number, within eight weeks. The Court further issued directions to ensure respectful, accessible, and efficient admission for EWS/DG students in private unaided schools.
Background
Since the present petitions shared a common experience regarding the difficulties encountered due to technical issues while seeking admission under the EWS/DG category, they were taken up together for adjudication. The petitioners, who were all the minor children, had applied through their parents/guardians, to the DoE for securing admission in entry level classes under the EWS/DG category. Consequently, by a computerised draw of lots, these children were allotted seats in Junior Wing of the School. Pursuant to such allotment, these children obtained admission in the school and completed their education in the entry level classes.
Thereafter, when the children were promoted to Class 1, they visited the Senior Wing of the School, located in a different locality. However, the Senior Wing of the School refused to grant admission to these children in Class 1, on the premise that as per the computerised draw of lots conducted by the DoE, these children had been allotted the Junior Wing of the School which had a different School ID and on the strength of such allotment made to these children, they could not be granted admission in Class 1 of the Senior Wing of the School.
A common thread that emerged from these petitions was that being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the school, the parents/guardians of these children filed RTI applications, wrote letters to the Ministry of Education or DoE, and eventually filed complaints with the National Commission of the Protection of Child Rights (‘NCPCR’). However, on being left with no other options, the petitioners approached this Court for seeking admission in the Senior Wing of the School, and for enforcement of their fundamental right to education as guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the present petitions brought to the fore the roadblocks faced by the parents and children of the EWS/DG category, and the need for private educational institutes to be more responsive and sensitive to the special background related needs of such children and their families. The Court stated that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’) aimed to ensure that every child, between the ages of six and fourteen, receives full-time elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality. Equality, social justice, and democracy could only be achieved through inclusive education, making it the responsibility, of government-supported schools and private schools to provide free and compulsory education. Thus, one of the pivotal provisions of the RTE Act was the mandatory reservation of seats for children from EWS/DG category in private unaided schools.
The Court stated that once the children were enrolled in an educational institution, there should be no distinction or categorization in their minds based on their financial background, especially when they were all studying in the same school. By denying the opportunity for continuous education in a school run by the same society, a pitiable situation frequently arises where, due to the two different identification numbers assigned by the DoE to the school’s junior and senior wings, financial segregation of students was indirectly perpetuated. The Court stated that it was unclear regarding the rationale for granting two separate School IDs, especially when both wings were run by the same society. By providing two school identification numbers to the same school’ junior and senior wings, only created confusion and did not contribute towards achieving the ends that the RTE Act was enacted to achieve.
Thus, the Court directed the DoE to merge/consolidate the different School Identification Numbers, assigned to the Junior and Senior Wing of the same schools, run by the same educational societies, into one single School Identification Number, within eight weeks. The DoE should intimate the schools concerned, where the aforesaid directions were applicable, about the directions passed in this judgment within one week. Further, if any School was aggrieved by the action of DoE, of merging of the School IDs, the School should be at liberty to file a representation in this regard before the DoE within four weeks from passing of this judgment. A compliance report regarding the above directions, should be filed by the DoE before this Court, after conclusion of the period of eight weeks.
The Court opined that a seamless transition from one class to another was important in ensuring that the dignity of the children and their parents was not compromised. Further, the children belonging to the EWS/DG category would not face the disadvantage or disrespect of seeing their peers, who might have scored lower, seamlessly move to the next standard.
To ensure a more respectful, accessible, and efficient admission process for EWS/DG category students, the Court stated that every private unaided recognized school in Delhi should appoint a dedicated Nodal Officer for overseeing the admission process of students under the EWS/DG category. This officer should serve as the primary point of contact for parents and guardians, ensuring that they receive clear guidance and assistance throughout the admission process. Information about the Nodal Officer, including their contact details and office hours, must be prominently displayed at the school’s entrance and on the school’s official website.
Recognizing the language barriers faced by many parents of EWS category students, the Court stated that the circulars, notices, instructions related to admissions under EWS/DG category should be provided in English and Hindi. Further, regarding preparation of an admission Schedule of EWS/DG category students, the Court directed all the private unaided recognized schools of Delhi to prepare a clear admission schedule following the allotment of students by the DoE pursuant to the computerised draw of lots.
To streamline the admission process of EWS/DG category students, the Court stated that the schools should create a schedule specifying the date and time of each student required to report for admission, within the seven-day period. The admission schedule should include a comprehensive list of all documents that parents were required to bring for the admission process. This admission schedule should be made available in Hindi and English and must be displayed, either prominently in the school premises or at the office/room of Nodal Officer. This schedule should be clearly communicated and made accessible to ensure that parents were fully prepared, and they did not face unnecessary delays during the admission process.
The Court directed the DoE to ensure that these directions were circulated among all the private schools in Delhi, wherever the admissions were granted to students under EWS/DG category as per computerized draw of lots, and that the same were complied with in letter and spirit. The Court opined that these measures would go a long way in simplifying the admission process for underprivileged families, many of whom may have limited educational backgrounds or face language barriers. The successful implementation of these directions was essential to uphold the rights of EWS/DG category students and to ensure that their access to education was not hindered by avoidable procedural challenges.
The Court stated that the children belonging to EWS/DG category should never be made to feel that their more advantaged peers were cared for or respected more. The State must also ensure that the children did not feel that the State did not care for them at no point in time, a child’s self-respect should be hurt. Therefore, all the stakeholders must ensure that there was a seamless merger of EWS and Non-EWS students in the schools.
[Gunjan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5840, decided on 22-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Aayush Agarwala, Advocate; Rahul Bajaj and Amar Jain, Advocates; Aditi Gupta, (DHCLSC), Advocate; Anuj P. Agarwala, Kunj Mehra, Mallika Luthra, Nilesh Kumar, Prakash Jha, Advocates; Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Shagun Agarwal, Sajal Awasthi, Advocates; Arkaneil Bhaumik, Rupam Jha, Adhishwar Suri, Suparna Jain, Ibansara Syiemlieh, Dushyant Kaul, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC Civil GNCTD with Divyam Nandrajog and Utkarsh Singh, Advocates; Sanjay Sehgal and Shivesh Sehgal, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
