New Delhi, A child’s right to education does not encompass the right to select a particular school for it, the Delhi High Court has held.
A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the Right to Education Act was a beneficial legislation, enacted to achieve the objectives of social inclusion and ensuring that schools become a common space which was not differentiated by barriers of caste, ethnic group or caste lines.
“However, such a right to education cannot be translated into right to select a particular school,” the court ruled on March 25.
The court’s verdict came on a mother’s appeal seeking to admit her ward in Class 2 under the EWS category in a private school for the academic session 2024-2025.
The appellant had earlier approached a single-judge bench of the high court for admission of her ward under the EWS category in Class 1 of the private school for the 2023-2024 academic session.
In the appeal, the appellant assailed the single judge’s order, which said that although the school lacked a legitimate basis for refusing admission to the appellant’s ward, the conclusion of the relevant academic year precluded the court from issuing an order for her ward’s admission in the subsequent academic year, i.e. 2024-25.
The single judge, however, had said that the unfilled EWS seats in Class 1 for the academic year would be carried forward next year for the same class and would be available to any EWS candidate, including the appellant’s ward, if they choose to apply.
The appellant, however, argued before the division bench that her ward ought to be given admission in Class 2 in the school for the academic year 2024-2025.
Refusing to grant relief in the appeal, the division bench stated that in the absence of any interim order of provisional admission or reserving of a seat during the pendency of the petition, the right of the student to be granted admission in the school would perish once the academic year was over.
It further noted that when the school refused to grant admission, the Directorate of Education accommodated the appellant’s ward in another school, which was amongst the preferred schools selected by the appellant at the time of filing the application form.
However, the second school was not accepted by the appellant, noted the court.
The appellant stated that during the draw of lots conducted by the DoE in March 2023, her ward’s name was selected for admission in the private school.
She alleged that when she approached the school for verification of the documents and to complete the admission process, she was denied entry and advised that she would receive further communication.
The appellant was subsequently informed that admission for EWS children could not be granted until all seats for the general category were filled, and therefore her ward was placed on a waiting list, the court was informed.
She therefore filed the writ petition seeking direction to the school to grant admission in terms of the list of selected candidates through the draw of lots conducted by the DoE.
During the course of the hearing in the appeal, the counsel for the DoE offered to provide admission to the appellant’s ward in any municipal school.
The counsel for the appellant, however, declined the proposal. He said the appellant was unwilling to accept admission at any institution other than the allotted school since her ward was denied admission despite there being no fault of their part.
