Full Text
JUDGMENT
MASTER VANSH THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR Petitioner
Tlirough: Mr.K.B.Jha, Adv.
- 1^.
Through: Mr.O.S.Soran, Adv. for R-1-2 Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC with
I Mr.S.Baneiji, Adv. GNCTD along with / Mr.Shyam Behari, LA, Zone-13
Fororders, see W.P.(C)No.7945/2016.. ^ V; KAMESWAR RAO, J
MARCH 31,2017/ak 2017:DHC:8097 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Judsment deliveredon: March 31, 2017
NEERAJ KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.K.Upadhyay, Adv.
Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Ms.Pratishtha Vij, Mr.Rhishabh Jetley, Advs. for R-2-4
MASTER VANSH THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.B.Jha, Adv.
MASTER DEVANSH AHUJA THR MOTHER BHARTI AHUJA Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.B.Jha, Adv. VENKATESHWAR GLOBAL SCHOOL & ORS Respondents
Mr.S.Banerji, Adv. GNCTD along with Mr.Shyam Behari, LA, Zone-
MUKESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.N.K.Upadhyay, Adv.
Through: Mr.Prashant Sivarajan, Adv. for Mr.Ankur
Chhibber, Adv. for R-1-2
RAVI KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr.Narendra Kumar Upadhyay, Ms.Juhi, Advs.
Through: Mr.Peeyosh Kalra, ASC with Mr.Shiva Sharma, Ms.Sona Babbar, Advs. for DOE (GNCTD).
Ms.Vijaya Singh, Adv. for R-1.
1. Vide the present order, I shall dispose of five writ petitions being W.P.(C) 7945/2016, W.P.(C) 9069/2016, W.P.(C) 9144/2016, W.P.(C) 10361/2016 and W.P.(C) 10675/2016 as they involve common issue. The substantive prayer sought in all the writ petitions is that a direction be issued to the respondents to give admission to the linor petitioners/wards of the petitioners for the academic session 2016-2017. As the facts in each of the writ petition are at variance, I intend to narrate the facts of each writ petition and the stand ofthe respondents in their pleadings. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7945/2016
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.l had in the month of March 2016 displayed the vacancies for admission under EWS/Freeship category on public domain i.e the website of the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. On the sis of the said vacancies, the petitioner submitted an application to the office of the respondent No.l for the admission of his ward Avish Rana in Class 1®^ in the session 2016-2017. In April, 2016 the petitioner visited the office of the respondent No.l and he was given some forms. The petitioner filled up the forms and also paid the requisite fee but no receipt was given to the petitioner and this aspect has been informed to the office ofthe respondent No.2. After waiting for three weeks, the petitioner approached some days. The petitioner approached the respondent No.2 as well as the respondent No. 1 but no response was given.
3. It is the case of the petitioner, he was informed by the officer of the respondent No.l in the month of July 2016 that the respondent No.l is not allotted/provided with land by DDA or any other Government agency, so the respondent No.l is not sponsible for admission under EWS/DG/Freeship category. The petitioner's case is thathe suspects that the respondent No.1has allotted seats in a non-transparent manner, which raise serious doubt over the admission process of the School. Just like the vacancies are being displayed in public domain on the website of the Directorate of Education i.e respondent No.3, in the same manner the finally selected list of wards, financial and social status of the parents of the wards and the admission criteria must also be displayed on the website ofthe respondent No.3. It is the case ofthe petitioner it the issue of admission under EWS/DG/Freeship category is already a decided matter by this Court vide judgment dated November 24, 2014 in fF.P.fCJ NO. 4607/2013 in the case ofJusticefor Allv. Govt. ofNCTofDelhiandAnother.
4. The respondent No.l School has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the vacant seat for the admission under EWS/Freeship category was put on public domain on the website ofthe Directorate ofEducation in the month of March, also stated that the ward of the petitioner is not entitled to admission considering the fact thatthe distance of the house of the petitioner is more than 6 km whereas as per the guidelines of the respondent No.2 of neighbourhood criteria, the child/ward residing within the parameter of 6 km is to be admitted first. It is stated that in terms of the categorization EWS/DG students residing within 0-1 km shall be admitted first, condly those residing within 1-3 km, thirdly those residing 3-6 kms and lastly students residing beyond 6 kms shall be admitted only in case vacancies remain unfilled even after considering all students within six kms area. It is their case, the School has represented that the distance of the petitioner's house is more than 10 kms from the School, hence, the question of the admission of the petitioner does not arise since the School was already having nine applications for admission under the EWS category against four vacancies in Class-I and out of them, five applicants are claiming to be;iding within the parameter ofthe guidelines i.e 6 kms.
5. • It is averred by the respondent No.l School that it has taken up the matter with the respondent No.2 for further issuance of direction on the subject matterto respondent No.l vide letter dated May 2, 2016 and the respondent No.2 has categorically issued a letter dated May 25, 2016 that the applications for admission in Class I are to be submitted through online only whereas many applications are forwarded to School received against these vacant seats in Pre-Primary (KG) and Class Ibut the respondent No.2 neither replied nor issued any guidelines. The School has denied that the petitioner has visited the School in the month ofApril, 2016. The School has denied that the admission has been done in anon-transparent manner. It is also the stand ofthe School that as per the guidelines, all such type ofvacancies are to be filled up through spondent No.2/3 by submitting online application and as per the guidelines of the respondent No.2/3 and the said vacancies should be filled up and it is the responsibility of the respondent No.2/3 to issue guidelines. In the absence of any application to the respondent No.l and the ward ofthe petitioner is neither aneighbourhood child nor has followed the guidelines, is not entitled tothe admission.
6. Arejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.1has been filed.
7. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a short affidavit. It is stated that in terms of •ovisions ofSection 12(l)(c) ofRight ofChildren to Free and Compulsory Education, Act, 2009 ("RTE Act") all the private unaided recognized Schools are bound to comply witii such notifications/circulars issued by the Directorate of Education regarding admission under Economically Weaker Section/Disadvantage Group Category at their respective entry level classes Pre-School/Nursery, Pre-Primary/KG and Class I and the respondent No.l Venkateshwar Global School being in the same category ofthe School society for admission in said Private Unaided Recognized Schools (except minority schools) vide circular dated December 29, 2015 issued guidelines for admission under EWS/DG category at the entry level classes against 25% seats reserved mPrivate Unaided Recognized Schools of Delhi for the session 2016-2017. For the Private Schools recognized under Delhi School Education Act &Rules, 1973, which includes spondent No.lA^enkateshwar Global School also, the respondents 2and 3devised a common online module for admissions under EWS/DG category at their respective entry level classes for the session 2016-2017. Through the aforesaid guidelines, the respondents 2 and 3 devised a common online registration form at the respondent department website for admission under EWS/DG category in all the concerned Private Unaided Schools recognized under the Delhi School Education Act &Rules, 1973 for the session 2016-2017. All such candidates who had applied online for EWS/DG ategory as per the circular dated December 29, 2015 guidelines were considered for admission through computerized draw of lot. The last date of online submission of application for such admissions in the said concerned Schools was January 22, 2016, which was later extended upto February 5, 2016 vide circular dated January 22, 2016 then upto February 9, 2016 vide office order dated February 6, 2016. At the initial stage of online admission process, all the concerned Schools were requested to provide their level classes of the School. The entry level class declared by the respondent No.l for EWS/DG category admission for the session 2016-2017 is Pre-School/Nursery but did not declare KG/Pre-Primary and Class I as entry level and accordingly the respondent No.l showed zero vacancies under EWS/DG category in class KG/Pre-Primary and Class I for session 2016-2017. The guidelines of the said circular explicitly states that VS/DG category admission in the entry level classes in the Private Unaided Recognized Schools can only be done by way of centralized online admission module devised by the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has not followed the said instructions contained in circular dated December 29, 2015. The respondents 2 and 3 also state that the respondent No.l vide its letter dated June 23, 2016 informed the respondent department that the respondent No.l have vacancies in Class I under EWS/DG category on account of cancellation of EWS/DG category admissions due to:e/forged EWS/DG category certificates and vacancies due to increase in General Category seats at the initial stage of online EWS/DG category admission process, there was no vacancy in the Pre-Primary/KG and Class I of the respondent No.l School. When the vacancy arose later in the academic year, at that point of time, due to non availability of the online application for the Class I, the respondent department could not carry out the online process for filling vacant seats in Class I of the respondent No.l n inform the respondents 2 and 3 well in time about the EWS/DG category vacancy position correctly so that the online applications could be called against the vacancies m Class Iofrespondent No.I School. It is stated that the School which have taken fresh admission under General Category at various entry levels (Pre-School/Nursery, Pre- Primary/KG and Class-I) and did not declare the same at the beginnmg of the onlme WSfDG category admission process for the academic session 2016-2017, the respondent Department has taken a policy decision that the EWS/DG category vacancies in proportion to the General/Open Category admissions done shall be added in respective entry levels during the next academic session 2017-2018. Vide circular dated December 8, 2016 the respondent Department conveyed the aforesaid policy decision to all the concerned Private Unaided Recognized School and all the concerned Schools, including the respondent No.l School are bound to comply with the said policy jcision. The respondent No.l School by way of representation dated December 15, 2016 declared that the School has 14 vacancies inPre-Primary/KG and four vacant seats in Class I under EWS/DG category. The respondent No.l School has requested to add these vacancies in the online EWS/DG category admission process for the ensuing session 2017-2018 and the respondents 2and 3considered the request ofthe respondent No.l School and as per the aforesaid policy decision, decided to carry forward 14 n being fair and transparent. It is also stated that online system has saved time and cost of going to various Schools and submitted various applications and then several further rounds till the admission takes place. The computerized draw of lots has checked malpractices to a large extent and has made the monitoring much more effective. Further, the Department cannot continue with the process of inviting fresh applications _Dr the vacancies arising during the mid academic session and that is why the vacancies which are created in mid academic session are carry forward for the admission process of ensuing academic session. It is stated that the petitioner having neither applied for admission ofhis ward under EWS/DG category at entry level declared ofthe respondent No.l School within the stipulated time nor did he apply for the same using the appropriate mode i.e online portal ofthe Directorate ofEducation, the petitioner having opted to seek admission by way ofmanual application in September, 2016, no cause of ction lies against the respondents 2and 3and the instant writ petition be dismissed. Writ Petition (Civin 9069/2016
9. The present petition has been filed by Master Vansh a minor through his father, seeking admission in the respondent No.l School in KG. It is the case ofthe petitioner that he belongs to Economically Weaker Section ofthe Society and the respondent No.l School is a neighbourhood School to the petitioner. The School is situated on the land k0.- 25% ofthe strength ofthe School. He would refer to the provisions ofSection 12(1)(C) ofthe RTE Act, 2009. The Directorate ofEducation has notified admission Rules for admission under EWS category namely Delhi School Education (Free Seats for Children belonging to Economically Weaker Section and Disadvantaged Group) Order, 2011 and notified the manner of admission. All duties imposed on Government now ifted to parents and children. Now they have to apply for admission in the School and Schools have to organize draw of lots with priority to students residing in the neighbourhood, which is defined 1km under the Rules of2011. The household survey and identification of children belonging to EWS could take time so it could be an interim arrangement until government should complete duty imposed under Act but it failed even to start the duty under Act and continued the admission process until session 2015-2016 in the same manner. It is the case of the petitioner that on December 29, 15 the respondent No.l notified guidelines for admission of EWS/DG category at entry level classes in Private Unaided Recognized Schools of Delhi for the session 2016-2017 and notified the online process of admission in the entry level classes in some of the schools including the respondent No.l School and called for vacancy in the School. The petitioner would submit that the circular is void without any authority in the law and contrary to provisions of Section of RTE Act, 2009 and also contrary to > the onHne system respondent No.l School filled up the vacancy only for first entry level class and no vacancy uploaded by respondent School for Pre-Primary class and no student applied for that class in the school despite there was vacancy in the school in Pre-Primary class. The circular states in clause (m) that after online system comes to end on March 31, 2016, the admission process shall continue as per manner notified in le notification dated January 7, 2011.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that his father came to know about EWS scheme and approached the respondent No.l School for admission against the vacant seat on August 5, 2016. The respondent No.l School refused to entertain the candidature of the petitioner and informed the father of the petitioner that he did not apply through online system, so the petitioner cannot get the admission in the School. The father of the petitioner approached the concerned Deputy Director of Education and searched for istrict Admission Monitoring Committee and help desk but nothing was in existence and even officers there refused to accept the application of the petitioner who also intormed the father of the petitioner that he has missed an opportunity for admission of his ward. It is the case of the petitioner that on August 16, 2016 the father of the petitioner raised the grievance under PGMS to the Hon'ble the Chief Minister and the respondent Director of Education informed the petitioner that he has not applied for admission at the time prescribed for admission in the respondent No.l School and hence or the Directorate never shown any vacancy in the respondent No.l School in online system so there is no question to apply against vacancy which never notified. Now the respondents refused admission to the petitioner in the School on the ground that he has not applied in the same through online system.
11. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit. It is the case of the dd respondents that they have not shown any reluctance to implement the provisions of+^e RTE Act, 2009 and land allotment condition or ever did any act which is contrary to the guidelines/instructions of respondent No.3. It is stated that the respondent No.l has only acted in accordance with the instructions issued by the respondent No.3 vide its letter dated November 18, 2015 and accordingly declared the vacancies in that particular module for the entry level class. They state that the respondent no.l School only declared the seats in class nursery in accordance with the circular dated November I, 2015, which clearly states that ''whenever any fresh admissions are made" and School accordingly notified the vacancies in the Pre-School. However, School always declared the EWS vacancies in all other classes also as and when they occurred as per the guidelines of respondent No.3. It is also stated that as the instant matter pertains to the admission under EWS category in Pre-Primary for which the respondent No.3 has categorically instructed respondent No.l School vide its letter dated May 25, 2016 that the application for admission in entry level classes are to be submitted through online many other applications were also forwarded to the School by parents through drop box/post, which were declared by respondent School against cancellation of EWS admissions in the month of March/April, 2016. It is also stated that even before receiving the application of the petitioner, the respondent No.l School received 34 applications through drop box/post till May 31, 2016 in Pre-Primary class and for which e respondent No.l School approached the respondent No.3 to seek guidelines but no response was received. It is also stated that respondent No.3 vide its letter dated May 25, 2016 clearly stated that the application for admission in entry level classes are to be submitted through online only and since there were other applications received through drop box/post against vacancies which were declared in the month ofMarch/April, 2016 on cancellation ofEWS admissions in Pre-Primary class till May 31, 2016.
12. Respondent No.3 in its short affidavit has taken a similar stand, as has been taken ' them in W.P.(C) No. 7945/2016. An additional affidavit was also filed by the respondent No.3- wherein it is stated that in terms of Clause 10 ofthe Notification dated November 7, 2011, the respondent No.3 is empowered to issue instructions/guidelines/clarifications to Schools so as to ensure effective implementation of the provisions of the Notification. In order to implement the provisions of the Notification, the respondent No.3 issued a circular dated December 29, 2015 so as to ensure a fair, uniform and transparent admission procedure and to maximize the '>y circular, the respondent No.3 has devised acommon online registration form, which can be accessed through the website ofthe respondent No.3. All such candidates who had applied online for EWS/DG category as per the circular were considered for admission through computerized draw oflots. For centralized online EWS/DG category admission process, the procedure followed is, all concerned Schools were directed to update their acancy status of all entry level classes online on the respondent No.3's website; the declared vacancies were made public onthe website and online module was opened for filling up the application form w.e.f January 1, 2016; the last date of filling up the form was February 09, 2016 after extension of date twice; thereafter first computerized draw of lots was conducted on February 15, 2016 and successftil candidates were informed through SMS on their registered mobile number; the list of successful candidates were also displayed on the respondent No.3's website, thereafter second and third )mputerized draw of lots were conducted on May 24, 2016 and October 26, 2016 respectively against the remaining EWS/DG category vacancies after getting updates from the respective private unaided recognized schools. It is the case of the respondent No.3 School that it would be erroneous to apprehend that admission process is closed by the 3V^ March ofthe relevant academic year. The admission process remains open only for those applicants who had applied online.
13. On District Admission Monitoring Committee, it is the stand of the respondent respect ofmanual admissions to all classes in Schools recognized under the RTE Act. However, the respondent No.3 in the interest of the school education in Delhi and m order to implement the provisions ofthe Notification, issued the aforesaid circular so as to ensure fair, uniform and transparent admission procedure and to maximize the opportunity for securing admission under EWS/DG category. It is the case of the..jpondentNo.3 that with regard to admissions under the EWS/DG categoiy, the role of DAMC comes into play after all online applications have been exhausted. It was submitted that the right ofadmission will first go to acandidate who had applied within the stipulated time period after having followed the procedure prescribed. It is stated that still there are thousands of such online applicants who have remained unsuccessful even after the third round of computerized draw of lots. Hence, the present petitioner has no right to be considered by-passing thousands ofsuch unsuccessftjl applicants.. It is the stand of the respondent No.3 that if afterwards EWS/DG category vacancies arise in a particular entry level class (not declared at the beginning ofonline process), not owing to fresh general category admission, but due to any other bonafide reason such as attrition, cancellation of admission due to fake documents etc, then such vacancies should be carried forward to the next entry level class during the online admission process of next academic session. Therefore, the EWS/DG category nJ^ forward vacancies in Pre-Primary/KG and Class-I shall be filled through online admission process for the next academic session and carried forward vacancies in Class- II shall be filled by the concerned school themselves through manual admission process of next academic session. This decision has been taken in order to ensure that vacant seats are filled m a fair, uniform and transparent manner and to maximize the pportunity for securing admission under EWS/DG category. It is stated that Clause 10 of the Notification, empowers the respondent No.3 to issue guidelines/instructions for admissions under EWS/DG category in Private Unaided Recognized Schools of Delhi. On Public Grievance Monitoring System, it is stated that it ensures redressal of grievances mafair and time bound manner. It has been evolved to ensure proper recording, tracking and monitoring ofeach and every grievance uploadedon the portal. Writ Petition (Civin No. 9144/2nT[6]. This petition is also filed by aminor through his mother seeking admission in Class KG under EWS Categoiy in the respondent No.l. The facts of this case are identical to the facts as noted in W.P.{C) No. 9069/2016 except that it is stated that on September 14, 2016, the motherofthe petitionercameto know aboutthe vacancy in the respondent No.l School and approached the School for admission against the vacant seat. The respondent No.l School refused to entertain the candidature ofthe petitioner and informed the mother ofthe petitionerthat he did not applythrough online system so approached the concerned DDE and searched for District Admission Monitoring Committee and help desk but nothing was in existence and even officers there refused to accept the application of the petitioner and she was informed by the officials that the petitioner has missed an opportunity ofgetting admission in the School. Itis the case of the petitioner that his mother has sent representation dated September 29, 2016 to the ^ftpondent No.l School and Directorate of Education requesting them to admit the petitioner in the respondent No.l School. The mother of the petitioner also requested the Chairperson of DAMC district north west B FU Block, Pitampura to forward the name ofthepetitioner inthe respondent School butno response was received.
16. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.l and 2 would reveal that the stand is the same as was taken in W.P.(C) No. 9069/2016.
17. Insofar as the facts relatable to the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner has ^^l^er submitted any application with the respondent No.l School at any point oftime. It is deniedthat the petitioner is residing at a distance of 500 meters from the respondent No.l School. According to the respondent No.l, the distance is of 4 kms. It is also stated that EWS vacancies in KG and Class I were declared subsequent to the cancellation of few EWS admissions in the month of March/April, 2016 whereas the DoE asked the School to declare the EWS vacancy for entry level class in November, - '2& in Nursery only and subsequently in KG and Class I in following months in 2016. Subsequently, the vacant seats are under EWS category in KG and Class I were also displayed vide circular dated November 18, 2015. The respondent No.l School has admitted that it has received application from the petitioner in the month of September 2016 and was subsequently advised as per the instructions ofDoE, which were issued to lool vide letter dated May 25, 2016. As a common stand taken by the respondent No.3 in its short counter-affidavit and additional affidavit, the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. Writ Petition (CiviH No. 10361/2016
18. The present petition has been filed by a parent of the child inter-alia seeking admission for his ward for the academic session 2016-2017. The averments in the writ petition, being identical to the one in W.P.(C) No. 7945/2016, the same are not repeated the sake of brevity.
19. The respondent No.l in its counter affidavit has stated, the petitioner has not submitted any application with therespondent No.l within theperiod of competency of HQS for admission i.e August 31, 2016 but the application was submitted after the expiry ofperiod of competency of HQS for admission i.e on September 22, 2016. It is also averred that the petitioner is not entitled to admission of his ward considering the fact that the distance of the house of the petitioner is more than 6 kms whereas, as per • residing within the parameter of6kms are to be admitted first. Preference need to be given to students belonging to EWS/DG category residing within 0-1 kms, secondly to those residing 1-3 kms, thirdly to those residing 3-6 kms and lastly students residmg beyond 6kms shall be admitted only in case vacancies remain unfilled even after considering all students within six kms area. It is stated that the petitioner's house is...uated around 17 kms away from the School. Rest of the contents being same, the same are not repeated for the sake ofbrevity. Suffice to state, rejoinder has been filed to the counter-affidavit. A statement was given by the learned counsel for the respondents 2and 3on February 28, 2016 that the counter-affidavit filed in W.P(C) No.7945/2016 is adopted by the said respondents in this writ petition. Suffice to state, the stand of the respondents 2and 3is the same as reflected in short counter-affidavit filed in W.P(C) No.7945/2016. 'r\t Petition (Civin No. 10675/2016
20. This petition has been filed by aparent of the minor child namely Hemang for adinission under EWS/Freeship category. It is averred in the writ petition that in April, 2016 the petitioner visited the office ofthe respondent No.l and after going through all the details ofthe petitioner, the respondentNo.l gave some forms to the petitioner to be filled up. The petitioner filled up the forms and also paid the requisite fee but no receipt was toldbythe respondentNo.l thatfresh application alongwith papers arebeingsent to relevant Committee of respondent No.l for approval, which can take some more days. DespiteapproachingrespondentNo.2, nosatisfactoryresponse wasgiven.
21. Counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.l. It is stated that the respondent No.l cannot directly take any application form from candidates for admission under EWS/DG category. Such applications are to be filled/submitted with the respondent No.3. The DAMC prepares cluster/zone wise vacancy data for fresh seats and otherwise names ofthe children to Schools where vacant seats are available for admission against seats following the principle of neighbourhood School. The respondent No.l never received any application from respondent No.3/DAMC regardingthewardofthe petitionerfor admissionunderEWS/DG category. Itis stated that the respondent No.l received application of the ward of the petitioner from.jspondentNo.3 for admission after completionofnormal admission process under the EWS/DG category. It is also stated that instructions have been received from the respondentNo.3 for taking admission inEWS/DG category onNovember 21. 2016 for admission of Vedansh Kumar, S/o Pawan Kumar. The admission is pending due to non-availability ofcaste certificate. As and when Mr. PawanKumar arrangesfte same, the admission formalifies as prescribed in the guidelines will be completed. The the petitioner does not appear onthe list submitted withDAMC/respondentNo.3 as the application for admission under EWS category was never received from respondent No.3 unlike inthecase of other candidates.
22. No counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3. In any case, the counteraffidavit, as filed in other writ petitions, is considered as the stand ofthe respondents in [s petition as well.
23. Mr. N.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in writ petition
(civil) no. 7945/2016, 10675/2016 and 10361/2016, apart from reiterating the facts of each ofthe writ petition filed by him, would submit that in terms ofthe Public Notice dated 16'^ April, 2016 wherein in the last Para it is stated that "theparents may submit their applications DIRECTLY to the school concerned after verifying the vacancy position from the School It may ALSO BE NOTED THAT NO ACTION WILL BE iKEN ON SUCHAPPLICATIONS in this Office" to contend that the applications for admission were entertained by the Schools. That apart he would state that there is no transparency in the admission process against the seats which arose during the progress of the academic session because of attrition, cancellation of admission on account of submission of fabricated income certificate etc. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofJusticefor all v. Govt ofNCTofDelhi &Anr. in writpetition schools.
24. Mr. Khagesh Jha. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in writ petition
(civil) no. 9144/2016 and 9069/2016, apart from stating the facts ofthe writ petition would submit that under the provisions ofSection 12 (l)(c) ofthe Right to Education Act, minor petitioners are entitled for priority admission under the provisions ofthe KfE Rules, 2011 read with DOE Notification dated t January, 2011. He states that there is afailure on the part of the Directorate ofEducation to ensure compliance of provisions ofSection 6, 8, 9and 12 (1) (0 ofthe said Act. According to him. the Schools situated on the DDA land, there is an obligation to admit 25% children from EWS category. He also statesthatinterms oftheNotificationdated 7"January, 2011, issue to implement section 12(l)(c) of Right to Education Act, all the burden for admission has been shifted to the parents to approach the Schools with various „ocuments and there is provision ofdraw oflot ifthe number ofapplications are more than available seats in the Schools. The parents who could not secure the admission have to approach the District Admission Monitoring Committee for admission against free shipsseats'andthere isaprovisionto forward thename ofthe deservingcandidates to the private schools having vacancies. According to him as per the provisions ofthe Delhi School Admission Order, 2011, the Schools shall complete the admission process that until the session of 2015-16, the respondent /Directorate of Education was implementingthe provisions ofNotification dated 7-^ January, 2011,butinthe current session,theDirectorate issuedguidelinesdated29'^December,2015 whicharecontrary tothe Rightto Compulsory Education Act,Notification dated7'^ January, 2011 and as suchvoid. Accordingtohim,thecirculardated29"'December.2015 isapplicableonly the first round of admission which shall be closed on 31- March and after that Clause (m) of Circular Admission shall continue as per Clause 7ofthe Notification dated 7'" January, 2011. He would also rely on the judgment ofthis Court mJustice for All(supra) to contend thatDivisionBenchofthis Court made strongobservations thatthe children belongingto weakersections has every little access tojustice and they are notaware withthe Scheme ofEWS admission. Hestatesthatdespite beingallotted land at concessional rate, the failure on the part of the Directorate devising any..techanism for ensuringthe compliance ofthe conditionwould amount to denial ofthe right to the weaker sections ofthe society.
25. Onthe other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Schoolswould reiterate the submissions as made in their counter-affidavit. In substance it is their submission that they are bound by the instructions issued by the Directorate of Education and have compliedwiththesaidprovisions. Mr. GautamNarayan, learnedcounsel appearmgfor ->7 the Rightto Education Act, all private unaided Schools are bound to comply with such Notifications /Circulars issued by the Director of Education regarding the admission under economically weaker sections /disadvantaged categories at their respective entry level classes, Pre-school /Nursery, Pre-Primary/KG and the Class-I. In order to ensure opportunity to the children for getting admission in EWS /DG category against 25% its at the entry level classes ofthe private unaided schools recognized underthe Delhi School Education Act /Rules devised acommon online module for the session 2016- 2017 and accordingly aCircular dated 29^^^ December, 2015 was issued for admission under EWS /DG Category in all the said Schools. Through the Circular acentralized online registration form was devised and all such candidates who had applied onhne for EWS / DG category as per the Circular dated 29^^ December, 2015 guidelines were considered for admission through computerized draw of lot. He states that mthe ademic session 2016-2017, the last date for online submission ofapplications ofsuch admissions was 22"^^ January, 2016, which was extended twice, firstly up to February, 2016 and 9"" February, 2016. At the initial stage ofonline admission process, all concerned Schools were directed to provide the respective details online on the respondent / department's website regarding the respective entry-level classes and number of EWS / DG category vacancies at the declared entry-level classes of the School online admission module. He would also draw my attention to various provisions ofthe Act and the Rules and the Notification dated 7'^ November, 2011 to submit that in terms ofthe Notification dated 7'"^ November, 2011, the Directorate of Education is empowered to issue instructions / guidelines / clarifications to Schools so as to ensure effective implementation of the Notification. It is in furtherance to ^plement the provisions of the Notification, the Circular dated 29 December, 2015 was ensured so as to have a fair / uniform and transparent admission procedure and to maximize the opportunity of securing the admission in EWS / DG category. He contests the plea ofMr. Jha that the Circular is ultra-virus to the notification and / or provision ofthe RTE Act. He also states that in the academic session 2016-2017, a computerized draw oflot was also held on 15"^ February, 2016, 24"^ May, 2016 and 26 October, 2016 respectively. He contests the stand ofMr. Jha that the admission process. closed by 31'^ March ofthe relevant academic year. However the admission remains open only for those applicants who had applied online. He also refers to the Clause 7 of the Notification dated January, 2011 which refers to District Admission Monitoring Committee and Clause 2(l)(m) of the Circular dated 29"" December, 2015. According to him, the DAMC discharges its obligations as per the roles defined in the Notification in respect of the manual admissions to all classes in Schools recognized the aforesaid Circular so as to ensure a fair, uniform and transparent admission procedure andto maximize theopportunityfor securingadmissionundertheEWS /DG Category by way ofproviding stams ofvacancies at asingle point through answering respondent website. This is in exercise of power conferred under Clause 10 of Notification dated T'^January, 2011. He states that the roles DAMC comes mto play er all online applications have been exhausted. In otherwords, the rightto admission will first go to acandidate who had applied within the stipulated time period after having followed the procedure prescribed.
26. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue which arises for consideration is that the prayer as sought for by the petitioners in this petition is liable to be granted when the petitioners have not applied through online for admission in terms of circular issued by the Director of Education on 29'" December, 2015. 1may only '' ite here, in none of the petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Circular dated December, 2015.
27. The stand is that the said circular shall hold good for those admissions made uptill March 31, 2016.and not against the vacancies, which may arise after that date because ofattritions, cancellation ofadmissions on account ofsubmission offabricated certificates etc. In other words, the admission against those seats need to be made on "^7 online system to ensure afair, uniform, and transparent admissions under EWS/DG category, can't be overlooked. As stated above, the petitioners have not submitted online applications. In the absence ofapplications and also achallenge to the circular dated December 29, 2015 it must be held that till such time, the online applications are exhausted, the petitioners/wards ofthe petitioners have no right to seek admission on < 5Strength ofamanual application.
28. Insofar as the plea ofMr. Upadhyay and Mr. Jha that admissions must continue throughoutthe academicyeartillMarch 31,2017 (inthis case)byrelyingonclause 7(d) ofNotification dated January 7, 2011, Rule 13 ofDelhi Right ofChildren to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 and clause 2(m) of circular dated December 29. 2015 is concerned, to answer the issue and the plea urged, it is necessary to reproduce some ofthe provisions as referredto by the counsel for the parties during arguments. "Section 12. Frtent ofsrhnnl's responsibility for free and compulsory education: (I) For the purposes ofthis Act. aschool,- (a) specified in sub-clause (i) ofclause (n) ofsection 2shallprovidefree andcompulsory elementary education to allchildren admittedtherein: (b) specified in sub-clause (ii) ofclause (n) ofsection 2shall provide fi-ee and compulsory elementary education to such proportion of children admitted therein as its annual recurring aid or grants so received bears to its annual recurring expenses, subject to aminimum of
(c) specified in sub-clauses (Hi) and (iv) ofclause (n) ofsection 2shall admit in class I, to the extent ofat least twenty-five per cent, of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion. Providedfurther that where aschool specified in clause (n) ofsection 2 imparts preschool education, theprovisions ofclauses (a) to (c) shall applyfor admission to suchpreschooleducation. (2) The school specified in sub-clause (iv) ofclause (n) ofsection 2 providing free and compulsory elementary education as specified m clause (c) ofsubsection (1) shall be reimbursedexpenditureso incurred by it to the extent ofper-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount chargedfrom the child whichever is less, in such manner as may beprescribed: Provided that such reimbursement shall not exceed per-childexpenditure incurredbyaschoolspecifiedin sub-clause (i) ofclause (n) ofsection[2]: Providedfiirther that where such school is already under obligation to providefi-ee education to aspecifiednumberofchildren on accountofit having received any land, building, equipment or otherfacilities, either free ofcost or at aconcessional rate, such school shall not be entitled for reimbursement to the extent ofsuch obligation. 'h'i tSnfRTFtrt. 2009 No denial ofadmissioni Achild shall be admitted in aschool at the commencement of the academic year or.ithin such extendedperiod as may he prescribed: Provided that no child shall be denied admission ifsuch admtsston,s soughtsubsequent to the extendedperiod: Providedfurther that any childadmittedafter the extendedperiodshall complete his studies in such manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government. DelhiRightto Children to FreeandCompulsoryEducationRules, 2011 5SpecialTraining.- (1) TheSchoolManagementCommitteeofaschoolo^ned or managed by the Government or the local authority shall identify children requiring special training and organise such training in thefollowing manner, namely:- (a) the special training shall be based on specially designed, age appropriate learning material, approved by the academic authority specified in sub-sect,on (1) ofsection 29 ofthe Act; (b) the said training shall be provided in classes held in the premises ofthe school or in classes organised in safe residentialfacilities;
(c) the said trainingshall beprovided by teachers working in the school, or by teachers specially appointedfor thepurpose;
(d) the duration ofthe said training shall befor aminimum period ofthree months which may be extended, based on periodical assessment of learning trainingcontinue,o receivespecialattention by the teacher to enablehimMerto successfullyintegrate.iththerestoftheclass, academicallyandemottonally.
10. Admission of children belonging to weaker section and disaU.antaged group. - (I) The school referred to in clauses (ni) and (iv) ofcause n section 2shall ensure that children admitted in accordance.ith clause (c) of sub-section (!) ofsection 12 shall not be segregatedfi-om other chtldren tn classrooms norshalltheirclasses beheldatplacesandtimings differentfrom classes heldfor the other children. (2) Theschoolreferredto inclauses (Hi) and (iv) ofclause (n) ofsection sha ensure that children admitted in accordance with clause (c) ofsubsection (I) of section 12shall not be discriminatedfrom the restof,he children in any manner pertainingtoentitlements andfdcUitiessuchas textbooks, uniforms, hbraryand information and communication technologyfacilities, extra-curncular actmttes and sports., ^ i n (3) The area or limits ofneighbourhoodspecifiedin sub-rule (1) ofrule shall apply to admissions made in accordance with clause (c) ofsubsection (I) of section 12. Provided that the Government may. for the purposes offilling up the requisite percentage ofseatsfor children referred to in clause (c) ofsub-section (I) of section 12 extendthese limits ofneighbourhoodfrom time to time. (4) The Governmentmayprescribetheprocedureforadmissionofchildrenunder clause (c) ofsub-section (I) ofsection 12 by official notification issuedfrom time to time. fl.en>onthsfromthedateofcommencenrentoftheacademicyearofaschool. L, ^ "" ' determined by the headofthe school Provisions ofNotification datedJanuary 07, 2011, —./..p.—/. -:io/...—— applicatior,s and the.acant seats shall be renotified for applicationsandalso be notifiedto DAMC. 4(k) TheSchoolshallfurnishallsuchdetailsasmentionedinpare.(a). (cl (f), 1^, (h) and (i) resardin,free ship seats on its.ebsite and also on offic^ website ofDirectorate ofEducationgiving alldetails through the mpro bythedepar,n,entonthesamedayorlatestbynextverydayofthesuckeven. 7(d) TheDAMCshallpreparecluster/zone-wisevacancydataforfree-seats and shallforward thenamesofchildren toschools.herevacantseats areavaUa e for admission against free-seats, following the principle of neighbour school. Circular dated December 29, 2015 2(1) Aftercompletionofadmissionprocess, eachschool ^ /details regarding the number offilled and vacant seats under EWS Zgory at Ent^ W«.... C—./-,He online module available AllDDE.ofthedistrieisshallcompiletkesaiddata (Numberoffilledandvacan seats ofEWS/DG Category) zone-.iseandforward thesametoAct-IBranch on 13.04.2016for takingfurther necessary action. 2(m) The admission to such vacant seas ofEWSfDG Category is an ongoing process.hich may continue throughout the academic year and the Dtstr.ct ' ' Admission Monitoring Committee has been empowered to get filled sue vacanciesandcantakestepsasperthedirectionscontained,n ^,UsDirectorate's notificationNo.I[5] (l72)/DE/Act/20Wf69dated07/01/2011 and Rule 13 ofDelhiRight to Education Rules, 2011.
29. Section 15 oftheRightto Education Actcontemplates, achild shallbe admitte inaSchoolatthe commencementofthe academicyearorwithinsuchextendedperiod as may beprescribed. Eventhou^, this partofthe Sectioncontemplates anextended periodto beprescribedbutfirst provisotothe Section stipulates thatno child shallbe -denied admission ifsuch admission is sought subsequent to the extended period. The second proviso also give an indication with regard to admission during the extended period by stipulating that the child shall complete studies in such manner as may be prescribed by the Appropriate Government.
30. The Appropriate Government has prescribed in terms ofRule 13 ofthe Delhi RightofChildrento FreeandCompulsoryEducationRules, 2011,theextended period 31" August and it also contemplates asituation that ifachild is admitted m after the extended period, he shall complete the studies with the help of aspecial training as determined by the Head ofthe School. At the same time, the very Rules doesvideRule 10(4)prescribetheprocedureforadmissionofchildrenunderclause(c) ofsub-section 1ofSection 12 by official Notification issued from time to time. The fotification dated January 7, 2011 issued under sub-section 3of the Delhi School Education Act. 1973.Rule 43 oftheDelhi School Education Rules, 1973 andRightto Education Act, 2009 stipulate in casethenumber ofapplications for admission against thefree seatsarebelowthenumberofseatsavailable,admissionshallbemadefromthe available applications and the vacant seats shall be renotified for inviting forther applications and also be notified to DAMC. Suffice to state, this provision ofthe Notification dated January 7, 2011 does refer to District Admission Monitoring •ifcommittee and-the role ofDAMC is filling up the free seats. It contemplates, ifany free seats shallremainunfilledandtheDAMCwhichisrequiredtopreparecluster/zone wise vacancy data for free seats shall forward the names ofchildren to Schools where vacant seats are available for admission againstfree seats. This aspect is also clarified byclause2(1)ofcirculardatedDecember29,2015,whichreads asunder:the online module available or: ''^^^thrsaidlita ^umblroffilledandvacant AllDDEs ofthe districts shall compile seats ofEWS/DG Category) zone-wise andforwara 13.04.2016for takingfurther necessary action.
31. The plea ofMr. Upadhyay and Mr. Jha iflooked from the perspective ofthe aboveprovisionsisappealingandshallholdgood onlyifthenumberofapplicationsare jgsthantheseatsavailable. Inotherwords, afteralltheapplicantshavebeen given Emissionstillsomeseatshaveremainedunfilled. Asnotedabove,itisthestandofthe DirectorateofEducationthatthe draw oflots wereheld onFebruary 15,2016,May 24, 2016 and October 26, 2016 respectively and there are still thousands of onlme applicants who have remained unsuccessft.[1] even afterthe thirdround ofcomputerized draw of lots. In view of such astand of the respondent No.3 that the number of applications far exceeds the seats available, surely the parents/applicants who have submitted application online and who have not got admission cannot be overlooked for vacancies arisen later during the academic session.
37. Further in terms ofthe Rules of2011, the extended period ofadmission is five months i.e 31''August ofthat year. No doubt, the said period is not afixed period, inasmuch as achild can also be admitted thereafter, who shall be eligible to complete the studies with the help ofspecial training as determined by the Head ofthe School. Such aperiod need to be areasonable period and cannotbe stretchedtill 31«Marchi.e year, presupposes the child did not have the occasion ofleaming/studies/training ofthat particular class till that date. It is expected that child need to achieve aparticular level of leaming/knowledge/training to progress to the next higher level/class so as to be at par with his peers/students ofhis age. The question is what should be that date. Inote, Rule 5 of the Rules of 2011, which has been reproduced above, does indicate the nimum period ofat least three months oftraining be given to achild. Ifthat be so, an admission must take place on or before 31'' December ofthe academic year, as from the date following that date i.e 1'^ January till 31'^ March ofthe academic year, the period is achieved. In the cases in hand, the said period cannot be achieved at this point oftime. So the prayer ofthe petitioners for grant ofadmission cannot be accepted on this ground as well, apart from the ground that the petitioners/wards of the petitioners have not submitted online application. The writ petitions are dismissed.; /[ Nos. 7936/2017 (forstay) and32976/2016 (for stay) in W.P.(Q 7945/2016 CM No. 36734/2016 (for direction) in W.PiQ 9069/2016 CM No. 36997/2016(for direction) in W.P.(C) 9144/2016 C^" Nos. 40720/2016 (for stay) & 7956/2017 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 10361/2016 CM Nos. 41829/2016 (for direction) & 8667/2017 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 10675/2016 Dismissed as infructuous. ]
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MARCH 31, 2017