News Updates

Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Challenging Dilution Of EWS Quota Under The RTE Act [Read Order]

LiveLaw Research Team
6 Feb 2017 5:21 AM GMT
Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Challenging Dilution Of EWS Quota Under The RTE Act [Read Order]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court bench comprising the Chief Justice, Dr.Manjula Chellur and Justice G.S.Kulkarni, dismisssed a Public Interest Litigation Petition on January 25 challenging the Maharashtra Government’s dilution of the requirement to provide 25 per cent of seats in schools to Economically Weaker Sections under the Right to Education Act.

The petitioner, in this case, assailed the policy of the State Government as provided in the Government Resolution dated 10th January 2017 by virtue of which the State Government has regulated the admissions for the 25% free seats to be filled up under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, by making the school managements responsible for the same.

The second challenge is to the Government’s permitting students who   are   hailing   from   a distance   beyond   3   kms   in   particular   circumstances,   to   be admitted in these 25% free seats and that for such admissions the cost of transportation for the child to reach the school is required to be borne by the parents.

The bench refused to intervene in the matter saying it is a policy decision of the Government, and that the clauses objected to, would further the purpose of the RTE Act.

“In any case, if any person is aggrieved by the decision of the management not to admit the students,  such   person   can approach   the   appropriate   authorities   for  redressal   of   any grievances which can looked into the facts of the case”, the bench held in its order.

Read the order here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.
Next Story