IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement to the benefit of previous judgments is subject to the convincing argument and consideration of the circumstances, including the rejection of applications and the absence of stays of operation of related orders.

ORDER (Oral)

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. These are cases in which, as per the submissions advanced at the Bar today, allotment of admission to EWS students was granted on the basis of the number of seats worked out by the Directorate of Education (DoE), after conducting a computerized draw of lots.

2. Mr. Kamal Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent 1 School, submits that, prior to the conducting of the computerized draw of lots, the school had written to the DoE seeking a reduction in the number of seats which it would have to fill for that academic year. Admittedly, the said application was rejected by the DoE vide order dated 1 December 2022.

3. Mr. Gupta submits that said reduction is subject matter of a challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) 14287/2023, in which on 2 November 2023, while issuing notice on the writ petition, the DoE was restrained from taking any coercive action against the Respondent 1 School till the next date of hearing.

4. Prima facie, I am unable to see how this order has any bearing on the petitioners' right to admission to the school. I have already taken a view in para 59 of my decision in W.P. (C) 5194/2023, titled Anjali Pandey v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 584, that if, on the basis of the data worked out by the DoE, against which time is granted to all schools to make a representation, short-listing is conducted by the DoE and children are allotted to the schools, the schools cannot refuse to grant admission to the children so shortlisted. In Anjali Pandey, the Court was not in a position to grant relief ultimately, as, within the time granted by the DoE, a representation was made by the concerned school for reduction in the number of EWS seats, which was allowed by the DoE. It was in those circumstances that this Court held that the school was entitled to the benefit of the said decision.

5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the School, submits that as the school had applied before the draw of lots for reduction of the number of EWS seats which it would have to fill, it is entitled to the benefit of the observations contained in the penultimate sentence of para 59 of the judgment of this Court in Anjali Pandey, which distinguishes cases in which schools have actually applied for reduction of the seats prior to computerized draw of lots.

6. Mr. Gupta would have to convince the Court that he is entitled to the said benefit, despite the fact that the application filed by the school was in fact rejected by order dated 1 December 2022, and in W.P.(C) 14287/2023 filed against the said order, there is no stay of operation of the order but only a stay against coercive action against the respondent.

7. Mr. Gupta undertakes to convince the Court in that regard on the next date of hearing.

8. Renotify on 11 March 2024.