The central legal point established is the autonomy of private unaided schools in admissions and the requirement for restrictions on admissions to be imposed through law enacted by the Legislature.

1. The petitioner, an applicant for admission to the Pre-School / Primary Classes in the respondent No.2 Modern School, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in the academic year 2015-2016, has filed this petition seeking a mandamus to the respondent No.1 Directorate of Education (DoE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to ensure that the admission policy / criteria and guidelines framed by the respondent No.1 DoE and as uploaded by the respondent No.2 School on its website, are implemented in true sense and spirit and seeking a mandamus to the respondent No.2 School to so admit him. A direction is also sought to the respondent No.1 DoE to take action against the respondent No.2 School of de-recognition, for violating the admission criteria.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, (i) that as per the admission criteria uploaded by the respondent No.2 School on its website in December, 2014-January, 2015, 25% of the seats were reserved “for sibling”; (ii) that the petitioner falls in the said category, as his elder sister has been studying in the respondent No.2 School in IInd Class and accordingly applied for admission in the said category; (iii) that it was further provided in the admission criteria declared that the unfilled seats in the Sibling Quota shall be offered to the Alumni Quota; (iv) however, the name of the petitioner did not find mention in the list of students admitted; (v) that on making enquiries, it was learnt that the respondent No.2 School did not make admission as per the admission criteria declared and of the said 25% seats equal to thirty seats reserved for Sibling Category, diverted 29 seats by artificially creating a Double Sibling Category and Alumni Sibling Category, leaving only one seat for admission in the Sibling Quota.

3. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that if a draw of lots of all the applicants who had applied in the Sibling Category, for all the thirty seats had taken place, the petitioner had a 40% chance of admission.

However, since the respondent No.2 School diverted six of the said seats to the Double Sibling Category and twenty three of the said seats to Alumni Sibling Category, leaving only one seat for the applicants in the Sibling Category, who did not meet the Double Sibling Category or who did not have an alumni sibling, the chances of the petitioner of admission were literally reduced to “NIL”. It is contended that the respondent No.2 School, without notice, could not have so changed the criteria. It is argued that the respondent No.2 School has acted mala fide and indulged in favouritism.

4. I have at the outset invited the attention of the counsel for the petitioner to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Forum For Promotion of Quality Education For All Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi 216 (2015) DLT 80 concerned with the question, whether private unaided schools have the autonomy to admit students and whether the children through their parents have a right to choose a school in which they wish to study and whether the executive, by way of an office order, can impose a formula on the basis of which nursery admissions have to be carried out by such schools. It was held, (a) that private unaided recognized school managements have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to maximum autonomy in the day to day administration, including the right to admit students, though the right to administer does not include the right to mal-administer; (b) that restrictions cannot be imposed by way of office orders and that too without any authority of law; (c) that restrictions can be imposed only by way of law enacted by the Legislature and not by issuing a circular or a policy decision; (d) admittedly, no law in this regard exists; (e) that the Government cannot impose a straight jacket formula of admission upon the schools under the guise of reasonable restriction and that too without any authority of law. Accordingly, the office order of the respond