Right To Education Doesn't Mean Right To Choose Particular School: Delhi High Court Dismisses EWS Admission Plea

The Delhi High Court has held that the right to education does not translate to the right to select a particular school of choice once an academic year ends, in the absence of any interim protection.

“There is no cavil that the RTE Act is a beneficial legislation with an objective to achieve social inclusion and to ensure that School becomes a common space for children's education not differentiated by barriers of caste, ethnic group, or caste lines. However, such a right to education cannot be translated into right to select a particular school,” a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said.

The Court dismissed an appeal filed by a mother seeking admission of her ward in a private school under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.

Vide the impugned order, the single judge had refused the relief observing that once the academic year 2023–2024 had concluded, the claim for admission in that year stood extinguished.

The appellant's ward had applied for admission to Class I under the EWS/DG category for the academic year 2023–2024. Pursuant to a computerized draw of lots conducted by the Directorate of Education (DoE), the child was allotted a seat in Aadharshila Vidyapeeth.

However, the school declined admission, stating that EWS admissions would be processed only after general category seats were filled. The appellant mother then approached the single judge seeking admission of her ward in terms of the allotment. However, the relief was denied.

Upholding the single judge ruling, the Court noted that the ward was allotted an alternate School by DoE which was one of the preferred schools chosen in the application form. It added that despite being accommodated in one of the preferred schools, the appellant did not report to the said school and filed the writ petition before the single judge.

The Court observed that in absence of any provisional admission or reserving the seat during the pendency of the writ petition, the single judge had no power to create an additional seat for a particular Academic Year.

“In view of the above, in the cases where there is no interim order of provisional admission or direction of reserving of a seat passed by the Court during the pendency of the petition, the right of the student to be granted admission in the school allotted by the DoE would perish after the Academic Year is over,” the Court said.

Title: POOJA AS GUARDIAN OF BABY DEVANSHI JAISAWAR v. AADHARSHILA VIDYAPEETH & ANR

Click here to read order