The Delhi High Court concluded that children do not inherently have the right to attend a particular school of their choice. It underscored that the entitlement enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) only ensures free and compulsory education until the age of 14, without specifying any specific institution for such education. This ruling was issued in response to a writ petition filed by the mother of a 7.5-year-old girl against Maharaja Agrasen Model School.
A Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed, “Absent such application, holding of a computerized draw of lots and shortlisting of a child for admission to a particular class in a particular school, no right to seek such admission enures in favour of the child. The right available under Article 21A of the Constitution or under Section 12 of the RTE Act is only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not for being provided such education in a particular school.”
The petitioner, Jiya, born in 2016, was around 7.5 years old and belonged to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of society. Her mother applied to the Directorate of Education (DoE) on her behalf for admission under the EWS category in Class I for the academic year 2022-23. Following a computerized draw conducted by the DoE, Jiya was selected for admission to the school in question.
However, despite her mother’s repeated visits to the school, Jiya’s admission was refused by the institution. Her mother then sought the intervention of the DoE to secure Jiya’s admission, but these attempts were unsuccessful. Consequently, Jiya, represented by her mother, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the school to admit her as an EWS student in Class II for the academic year 2023-24.
The High Court after hearing both sides noted, “No child, without her application suffering the rigour of this exercise, can directly claim a right to be admitted to a particular class in a particular school in a particular year as an EWS student. … The right guaranteed to every child under Article 21A of the Constitution or under the RTE Act is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen. … That right would arise only if the child applies to the DoE as an EWS student for admission in the entry level class for that year and is shortlisted therefor, in the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the girl being deemed eligible for admission to Class I in the respondent school for the academic year 2022-23 by the Directorate of Education (DoE) does not automatically confer that right indefinitely into the future.
“Each year constitutes a fresh academic session. A child, who, for whatever reason, is unable to secure admission into a school as an EWS candidate despite having been shortlisted therefor by the DoE, and allows that academic year to pass without initiating any legal action in that regard, cannot claim, that on the basis of the said shortlisting, that she or he has an enforceable right to admission in that school for the next academic year to the next higher class. There is no such automatic carry forward of the right which enures in favour of the student, consequent to the draw of lots conducted by the DoE for a particular academic year, to the next academic year, in that class or in any higher class. Rights, it must be appreciated, extinguish with time”, it also observed.
The Court affirmed that the directive issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE) in the email, instructing the respondent school to admit the girl on the same day, lacks legal validity and cannot be enforced.
“By 13 April 2023, the 2022-23 academic session had come to an end. With it, it must unfortunately be said, perished Jiya’s right to admission as an EWS student in the Respondent 2 school as well. Beyond that, Jiya’s right to education under the RTE Act, or under Article 21A of the Constitution, is only for being educated till the age of 14, and not for being educated specifically in the Respondent 2 school”, it added.
The Court noted that Section 32 specifically allows individuals who have concerns about a child’s rights under the RTE Act to lodge a written complaint with the local authority.
“I do not know whether the petitioner has made any such complaint. Assuming she, through her parent(s), has done so, the complaint would be dealt with in accordance with law. Section 32(1) cannot entitle Jiya to admission to Class II in the Respondent 2 school, for which she never approached the DoE in the first place, as an EWS student”, it added.
The Court observed that the application submitted for the academic year 2022-23, along with the subsequent allocation of the petitioner to the respondent school through the computerized draw conducted by the Directorate of Education (DoE), has regrettably become irrelevant.
The Court determined that failing to protect Jiya’s educational interests, as guaranteed by Section 12 of the RTE Act and Article 21A of the Constitution, would be inconsistent. These provisions secure Jiya’s entitlement to education as an EWS student until the age of fourteen, and no further.
“Jiya is not, therefore, entitled to admission to Class II in the Respondent 2 school as sought by her. The said prayer has therefore, necessarily to be rejected. … The DoE would, however, make every endeavour to ensure that Jiya is granted admission as an EWS student in Class II in some other school. This should be done as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of pronouncement”, it ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.
