Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

EWS/DG Students’ Admission Cannot be Compromised: Delhi High Court Upholds Rights of EWS Students in School Admissions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that underscores the importance of education for children from economically weaker sections (EWS), the High Court of Delhi has ruled in favor of upholding the ‘Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009’ (RTE Act). The case (W.P.(C) 5194/2023) involved a dispute over the admission of a five-year-old child, Amitanjali Tiwari, under the EWS category at the Sovereign School.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, presiding over the matter, observed that the essence of the RTE Act is to ensure the educational upliftment of underprivileged children. The Court highlighted that schools are mandated to admit a minimum of 25% EWS/DG students and clarified the principle of carrying forward unfilled EWS/DG vacancies from the previous academic year.

In his judgment, Justice Shankar stated, “Admitting of EWS/DG students to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of its entry-level class is the statutory obligation of every school which falls within Section 2(n)(iv) of the RTE Act.” The Court noted that this obligation extends to carrying forward unfilled vacancies to the next year, should there be a shortfall.

The case centered around the denial of admission to Amitanjali Tiwari by the Sovereign School, despite being eligible and following the DOE’s directives. The petitioner, represented by her mother, Anjali Pandey, approached the Court after the school repeatedly denied admission.

The High Court’s decision was partly in favor of the petitioner. While Amitanjali will continue her current academic session as an EWS student at Sovereign School, the Directorate of Education (DOE) has been directed to ensure her admission in a neighboring school as an EWS/DG candidate for the next academic year.

Justice Shankar emphasized the DOE’s critical role in ensuring compliance with the RTE Act and remarked, “It is the responsibility of the school concerned to bring any error to the notice of the DOE on release of the first intimation by the DOE and within the time provided therein.”

This landmark ruling is seen as a significant step in reinforcing the rights of EWS children to education and ensuring that schools adhere to their statutory obligations under the RTE Act.

Date of Decision: 29 January 2024

ANJALI PANDEY VS GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

 

Similar News