{"id":221375,"date":"2019-10-22T14:15:10","date_gmt":"2019-10-22T08:45:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=221375"},"modified":"2019-11-02T13:40:59","modified_gmt":"2019-11-02T08:10:59","slug":"sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/","title":{"rendered":"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka<\/strong>: Buwaneka Aluwihare, and Prasanna Jayawardena PC, JJ<strong>., <\/strong>while dismissing an application observed that the petitioners could not give any justifiable reason or adduce any material to support the application form for admission.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the instant case, Petitioner 1, father of Petitioner 2, submitted an application for his son to Richmond College, Galle for admission to Grade One in the year 2018. The application was made under the core category \u201cChildren residing in close proximity to the School\u201d on the basis of Clause 7.2 of the Admission Circular (P1).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thereafter, an interview took place in which Petitioner 2 was granted 84 marks. 15 marks were deducted under Sub-Clause 7.2.3 for 3 schools situated in closer proximity to the Petitioner\u2019s residence than the preferred school, Richmond College, Galle.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Petitioner 2 was not selected but was first on the waiting list. Petitioner 1 submitted an appeal stating inter-alia that the Interview Panel had deducted 10 marks under Sub-Clause 7.2.3 contrary to the provisions of the Admission Circular P1.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Counsel for the petitioners, M.U.M. Ali Sabry, PC, contended that the deduction was not correct as the two schools i.e., CWW Kannangara Vidyalaya, Galle and Paramananda Vidyalaya, Galle admit only a restricted number of children (viz. 1%) belonging to the Islamic faith. It was submitted by the petitioner that if these 10 marks would not have been deducted Petitioner 2 would have obtained 94 marks and would have been on top of the list to gain admission to Richmond College, Galle. Thus, the Petitioner alleged, that Respondent&#8217;s actions were violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Counsel for the Respondents Suren Gnanaraj, SSC, submitted that the deduction was right as other schools are in closer proximity to the Petitioner\u2019s residence than Richmond College, Galle and that the Petitioner who is of Islamic faith was eligible to seek admission to the said three schools without any hindrance because the said three schools admit children of the Islamic faith without any restriction.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The main issue which the Court dealt with is whether the deduction of 10 marks for CWW Kannangara Vidyalaya and Paramananda Maha Vidyalaya is in violation of Sub-Clause 7.2.3 of the Admission Circular marked P1.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The applicant is required to name the said schools which are in closer proximity to the preferred school in the Application Form. The Petitioners did not indicate a single school.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The application tendered by the Petitioner (P2) further revealed that the Petitioner applied only to two schools namely, Richmond College, Galle and Paramananda Vidyalaya for admission to Grade One in the year 2018 though the Admission Circular requires a parent to apply to at least six schools including three Provincial Schools.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court after analyzing the submissions, observed that the petitioners should have established before this Court, whether there is a regulation or a rule that the school, being a Government School \u201ccan\u201d admit only less than 10% of children belonging to the Islamic faith or that there are restrictions placed on the said school with regard to admissions or the said school \u201ccan\u201d admit only a particular number of children of a particular faith or a particular percentage of children belonging to a particular faith, which the petitioners have failed to do so.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">It was also observed by the Court that the Application Form, tendered by the Petitioner to Richmond College, Galle tells that the Petitioner sought admission to only one other School and it was Paramananda Maha Vidyalaya, Galle. The Petitioner also failed to inform this Court, whether he was able to gain admission to Paramananda Maha Vidyalaya, Galle or whether the Petitioner 2 was deprived of admission to the said school, on the ground that the percentage for children of Islamic faith i.e. 1% had been exhausted.[Shahul Majeed Mohomed Rizwan v.\u00a0 Sampath Weragoda,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/6B2V90rK\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine SL SC 8<\/b><\/a>, decided on 09-10-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Buwaneka Aluwihare, and Prasanna Jayawardena PC, JJ., while dismissing an application observed <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":147611,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Buwaneka Aluwihare, and Prasanna Jayawardena PC, JJ., while dismissing an application observed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-10-22T08:45:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-02T08:10:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/\",\"name\":\"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-10-22T08:45:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-02T08:10:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination","og_description":"Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Buwaneka Aluwihare, and Prasanna Jayawardena PC, JJ., while dismissing an application observed","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-10-22T08:45:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-02T08:10:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/","name":"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","datePublished":"2019-10-22T08:45:10+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-02T08:10:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/22\/sl-sc-unequal-application-of-law-is-not-necessarily-denial-of-equal-protection-petition-dismissed-for-failure-to-show-element-of-intentional-and-purposeful-discrimination\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SL SC | Unequal application of law is not necessarily denial of equal protection;\u00a0 petition dismissed for failure to show element of intentional and purposeful discrimination"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":331150,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/19\/madras-hc-directs-veterinary-university-to-consider-application-of-transgender-person-admission-under-special-category\/","url_meta":{"origin":221375,"position":0},"title":"Madras HC directs Veterinary University to consider application of transgender person for admission under Special Category","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court directed the University to not reject the application of the petitioner on the ground of being a transgender person.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":326908,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/bombay-hc-refuses-admission-iisc-bangalore-air-10-candidate-delay-in-application-submission\/","url_meta":{"origin":221375,"position":1},"title":"Bombay HC refuses to permit AIR 10 candidate seeking participation in admission process at IISC, Bangalore, due to delayed application","author":"Editor","date":"July 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court stated that granting such relief would cause injustice to other applicants who were similarly situated as the petitioner and who could not submit their applications by the prescribed deadline.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280834,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/02\/delhi-high-court-admission-ews-certificate-right-to-education-school-reservation-legal-research-update-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":221375,"position":2},"title":"Last date for admission in EWS category is 31st December of any given academic year; belated admission impermissible: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"January 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court held that belated admission in a particular academic year would be totally dehors the scheme of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 and would be counterproductive to the very purpose of reserving seats for children belonging to the EWS category.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":360432,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/17\/rajasthan-high-court-rte-admission-technicalities-cannot-defeat-right-to-education\/","url_meta":{"origin":221375,"position":3},"title":"Technicalities Cannot Defeat a Child\u2019s Fundamental Right to Education: Rajasthan High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA fundamental right, especially when it unequivocally accrues in favour of a citizen, cannot be tossed even on the basis of the procedural grounds or technicalities.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"RTE cannot be denied on technical grounds","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/RTE-cannot-be-denied-on-technical-grounds.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/RTE-cannot-be-denied-on-technical-grounds.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/RTE-cannot-be-denied-on-technical-grounds.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/RTE-cannot-be-denied-on-technical-grounds.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254627,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","url_meta":{"origin":221375,"position":4},"title":"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement","author":"Editor","date":"September 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: V.G.Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement where it seeks to change former admissions.\u00a0 The Bench stated, \u00a0\u201cEven the most liberal approach towards amendment of written statements will not justify the approval of such an application.\u201d Background The petitioner was the defendant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":222706,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/30\/del-hc-landlord-entitled-for-judgment-on-admissions-in-a-suit-for-ejectment-where-tenant-unequivocally-admits-the-ingredients-to-be-established-by-the-landlord\/","url_meta":{"origin":221375,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | Landlord entitled for judgment on admissions in a suit for ejectment where tenant unequivocally admits the ingredients to be established by the landlord","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a petition that challenged the impugned order whereby petitioner's application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for judgment on admissions was rejected. The petitioner (landlord) had filed a suit for possession of the suit property which was owned by her. She had prayed for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221375","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221375\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/147611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}