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

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.

 

Latest Legal News