IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Ayan Jorwal Through Father Dinesh Kumar Meena - Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others - Respondents
W.P. (C) 348 of 2023 and CM APPL. 1358 of 2023
Decided On : 17-04-2023
SIBLING - ADMISSION CRITERIA - Delhi School Education Act, 1972 (DSEA) - Section 16(3) - Rule 145
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought admission for their child in a school under the 'Open Seats' Category. The school rejected the application for not providing the latest tuition fee receipt as proof of the sibling studying in the school. The petitioner's father argued that the elder brother was a student of the school under the Disadvantaged Group (DG) Quota and did not have a tuition fee receipt. The school eventually accepted the application but did not award 30 points for the 'sibling criteria'. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the school's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the school's refusal to award 30 points for the 'sibling criteria' due to the sibling studying under the DG Category as arbitrary and discriminatory. The court directed the school to award the sibling points and grant admission to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the school's refusal to award 30 points for the 'sibling criteria' based on the sibling's category of study and the requirement of a tuition fee receipt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the school's insistence on a specific document for the 'sibling criteria' was unreasonable and discriminatory. It emphasized the need for admission criteria to be equitable, non-discriminatory, and unambiguous.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the school to award the sibling points and grant admission to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for direction to consider the case of the petitioner child for admission to the respondent No. 3 School in Class-I by granting the benefit of marks under the criteria of sibling, without insisting on fee slip of the sibling of the petitioner as proof of studying in the school.
2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No. 3 School issued a notification for admission to entry level classes for academic session 2023-2024. The father of the petitioner herein applied for admission of the petitioner in Class I for academic session 2023-2024 in the ‘Open Seats’ Category. The petitioner's father submitted admission form online claiming total 70 points as per the criteria laid down by the School, i.e., 40 points for neighbourhood and 30 points for sibling, since the elder brother of the petitioner also studies in the respondent No. 3 School.
3. On 20.12.2022, petitioner's father received an email from School wherein it was stated that the application form of the petitioner has been rejected for the reason that latest tuition fee receipt in support of the ‘sibling criteria’ had not been attached. The email dated 20.12.2022 as issued by the respondent No. 3 School reads as under:
We regret that your application form (P1/2023/284) has been rejected for the following reason:
“Invalid document, kindly attach latest tuition fee receipt””
4. Pursuant to receipt of the aforesaid email, petitioner's father wrote an email dated 21.12.2022 to the School stating that his elder son was a student of the School, who had been admitted under the Disadvantaged Group (DG) Quota. Therefore, he did not have any tuition fee receipt in support of claim towards points under the ‘sibling criteria’. Along with the email, petitioner's father attached a document dated 10.11.2022 duly signed by the Principal of the respondent No. 3 School certifying that the elder brother of the petitioner was a bona fide student of the school in question.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner also wrote an email dated 22.12.2022 to the respondent no. 2, i.e., Deputy Director of Education (DoE). The respondent No. 2 wrote an email dated 23.12.2022 to the School directing it not to stress upon submission of proof of payment of fee made by elder brother of the petitioner.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner's father requested the respondent No. 3 School to consider the admission form of his son. No reply was received from the School. Subsequently, on 06.01.2023, respondent No. 3 School uploaded the list/details and points obtained by each applicant who had applied for admission under the ‘Open Seats’ Category. Name of the petitioner was not reflected in the list uploaded by the respondent No. 3 School. Petitioner's father again wrote to the school requesting to consider the application form of the petitioner for admission to Class I. Since the respondent School did not accede to the request of the petitioner's father and did not consider the application of the petitioner, the present writ petition has come to be filed.
7. It may be noted that after filing of the present writ petition, the respondent No. 3 School issued letter dated 11.01.2023 to the petitioner's father accepting the application form of the petitioner for admission. However, it was stated in the said letter that the petitioner had got 40 points, meaning thereby that 30 points towards ‘sibling criteria’ was not awarded in favour of the petitioner. The letter dated 11.01.2023 as issued by the respondent No. 3 School is reproduced as below:
You have registered for admission of your ward to Class-I for the academic session 2023-2024 in The Mother's International School.
Against 13 open seats for General Category, 288 have registered their names for admission in the Class-I.
Of these 13 seats, 11 candidates have got 50 or more points and as per the admission criteria, have been selected for admission (subject to verification of documents)
Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom
TMA Pai Foundation v. St. of Karnataka
Union of India v. G. Ganayutham
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE
J. Chandrasekaran v. V.D. Kesavan
Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy
Admission criteria must be reasonable, rational, and non-discriminatory, and schools have the autonomy to devise criteria but must adhere to principles of fairness and equity.
Private unaided schools possess the autonomy to determine admission criteria, and the explicit refusal of sibling points based on the definition of 'sibling' adheres to constitutional standards of fa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of siblings to points under the 'sibling category' for admission in a recognized private un-aided school, emphasizing the importanc....
Private unaided schools have the autonomy to devise fair, reasonable, and transparent admission criteria, including the method of calculating distance, and the courts will uphold such criteria if fou....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.