Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Sunil B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap, JJ.
Master Dhairya Pritesh Bansod – Appellant
Versus
Principal, Mothers Pet Kindergarten – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2118 of 2021
Decided On : 27-06-2022
Right to Admission - Un-aided Minority Private School - The court held that a Private Un-aided Minority School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and therefore, there is no corresponding right vested in a student to seek admission to such a School. The delay in communication of rejection of the application form by the School to the petitioner would not create any right in the petitioner to seek admission to such a School.
Fact of the Case:
During the pendency of the petition, developments occurred leading to the declaration of the result of an examination and payment of balance fees, rendering the petition infructuous. The petitioner sought to carry the petition forward by agitating a new issue arising from the rejection of the application form for admission to 1st standard in a school run by Mother's Pet Education Society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the developments had satisfied all prayer clauses, rendering the petition infructuous. It also held that there is no corresponding right vested in a student to seek admission to a Private Un-aided Minority School, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court. The delay in communication of rejection of the application form would not create any right in the petitioner to seek admission to such a School.
Issues: The issues involved the satisfaction of prayer clauses, the rejection of the application form for admission, and the legal right of a student to seek admission to a Private Un-aided Minority School.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is that a Private Un-aided Minority School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and therefore, there is no corresponding right vested in a student to seek admission to such a School.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of as nothing survived in the petition, and all pending civil applications were also disposed of.
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. During the pendency of the petition, certain developments occurred and those developments culminated into declaration of the result of the KG-II standard examination taken by the respondent No.1 while, the balance fees were also paid by the parents of the petitioner. These developments have satisfied all the prayer clauses and from this view point, this petition has been rendered infructuous.
3. However, Shri S. S. Sanyal, learned Advocate for the petitioner likes to carry this petition forward by agitating new issue arising from the rejection of the application form of the petitioner seeking admission to 1st standard in Centre Point School, Dabha Branch, run by Mother's Pet Education Society. Mother's Pet Education Society is the Society, which also runs respondent No.1 School. But the Society has not been made party here. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by unjust rejection of his application form and delayed communication of rejection of application form. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to amend the petition as per the proposed amendments contained in the application. This prayer has been strongly opposed by Mr. W. T. Mathew, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on several grounds. He also submits that there is no right vested in the petitioner to seek admission to 1st standard of School which is an Un-aided Minority Private School, as per the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan .v/s. Union of India and Anr., reported in, (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1.
4. We would have certainly considered the amendment application moved by the petitioner had there been any possibility of its bearing out any fruitful result. But, as we see from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (cited supra), such possibility is very bleak or it is almost non-existent. The Supreme Court, in the said case has already held that a Private Un-aided Minority School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and such being the position, there would be no corresponding right vested in a student to seek admission to such a School and that it would be absolutely within the discretion and of the prerogative of the Private Minority Un-aided School. Secondly, there may be delay in communication of rejection of the application form by the School to the petitioner, but this delay in communication by itself would not create any right in the petitioner to seek admission to such a School. At the most, the petitioner would have to pursue an alternate civil remedy for the loss which may have occurred to the petitioner due to the delay in communication.
5. In this view of the matter, we find that now nothing survives in the petition. The petition is disposed of, accordingly.
6. All pending civil application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
AI
A Private Un-aided Minority School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and therefore, there is no corresponding right vested in a student to seek admis....
The principle of constructive res judicata and the limited responsibility of private un-aided schools for admission from the neighborhood under the RTE Act, 2009.
No Objection Certificate to run the minority educational institution can be granted either by the Competent Authority declared by the appropriate authority as per Section 10 or by the National Commis....
The failure to comply with directives issued by the Education Department prior to obtaining minority status cannot condone default in admitting students under the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act mandates that private unaided schools comply with all provisions of the Act, including maintaining educational standards and ensuring opport....
The main legal point established is that a writ petition is not maintainable in cases lacking a public element and where the action is essentially of a private character.
Writ petitions can challenge actions of private unaided schools if they impact constitutional rights, but no such infringement was found in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
