Economic standing not a criterion for admission under Disadvantaged Group category.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)

1. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking admission to the respondent No.1 School under the Disadvantaged Group category (DG category). It is submitted that child of the petitioner, namely, Master Samarth Dabas is already studying in the said school in General category. It is submitted that since the petitioner belongs to Disadvantaged Group, i.e., Other Backward Class (OBC), therefore, the petitioner is seeking admission in the school under DG category instead of General category in which the child of the petitioner is already studying.

2. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ld. Standing Counsel for GNCTD submits that there is no legal impediment if the child of the petitioner who belongs to OBC category, is given admission under the DG category, though he may be already studying in the said school under the General category.

3. There is no appearance on behalf of the school when the matter is taken up for hearing. It is seen from the record that no reply has been filed on behalf of the school. The said school is recognized by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

4. Ld. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of MCD draws the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3/MCD and submits that the petitioner was granted admission in the school in question in General category since the income of the petitioner was shown to be more than Rs.7 Lakh per annum.

5. Be that as it may, since the petitioner belongs to OBC category and for admission under the OBC category, which is recognised as Disadvantaged Group (DG), the economic standing of the parties are not seen. Thus, income earned by the father of the child would not be criteria for the purposes of deciding the entitlement of the child for admission under the DG category.

6. It is submitted jointly by ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as ld. Standing Counsel for GNCTD that ward of the petitioner is successful in the draw of lots under the DG category for admission in the respondent No.1 school.

7. In view thereof, it is directed that son of the petitioner may be granted admission in the respondent No.1 School under the DG category. At this stage, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ld. Standing counsel submits that since son of the petitioner is already studying in General category, it would be a case of re-admission in the school under the DG category.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with directions to the respondent No.1 school to admit the minor son of the petitioner in the school under the DG category.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of along with pending applications.