Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Every Child, Irrespective of Economic Strata, Has Right to Aspire for Education in Best of Schools: Delhi HC Upholds RTE Act Provisions for EWS/DG Students’ Admission

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the rights of children from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG) to receive education in private unaided schools under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court underscored the importance of equitable educational opportunities, stating, “Every child, irrespective of the economic strata to which she or he belongs, has a right to aspire to be educated in the best of schools.”

The judgment dealt with the admission of EWS/DG children to private unaided schools. It centered around the interpretation and application of the RTE Act, specifically regarding the autonomy of schools and the educational rights of EWS/DG children.

Petitioners Jai, Pawan Kumar, and Tejas Nath, through their respective fathers, sought admission to KG/Pre-primary and Nursery/Pre-school classes in a private unaided school. The school argued for a reduction in EWS/DG seats, citing its inability to fill general category seats. The core issue was the balancing of the school's autonomy against the educational rights of EWS/DG children.

Balancing Autonomy and Rights: The Court acknowledged the competing interests between the autonomy of unaided schools and the educational rights of EWS/DG children. It emphasized that schools are bound by DOE directives unless specific exemptions are granted.

Doctrine of Carrying Forward Unfilled Seats: The Court affirmed the principle that unfilled EWS/DG seats can be carried forward to subsequent academic years. It mandated the respondent school to admit EWS/DG students as per DOE’s allocation.

Compliance with Statutory and Regulatory Provisions: The Court held the school accountable for complying with RTE Act provisions and DOE guidelines, thus ensuring equitable access to education for EWS/DG children.

Decision: The High Court directed the respondent school to regularize the admission of the petitioners as per DOE’s allocation under the RTE Act. The judgment reinforced the commitment to providing quality education to children from economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups.

Date of Decision: April 8, 2024.

ROHIT KUMAR VS DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR

Latest Legal News