NewKerala.com

Delhi HC: No Right to Pick School Under EWS Quota, Upholds Admission Lottery

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by a parent seeking admission for her child to a specific private school under the EWS category. The court ruled that the Right to Education Act ensures access to education but does not confer a right to insist on a particular school. It upheld the admission process via a computerized draw of lots and noted the parent unjustly refused an alternative seat in a preferred school. The bench clarified courts cannot create additional seats or grant admission after an academic session has concluded.

Key Points: Delhi HC: EWS Quota Doesn't Guarantee School Choice

  • Court upholds computerized lottery for EWS admissions
  • Right to Education Act promotes inclusion, not school choice
  • Parent refused alternative school placement
  • Courts cannot create extra seats after academic year
  • Supreme Court medical admission relief not applicable here
2 min read

No right to pick school under EWS quota, says Delhi High Court; appeal dismissed

Delhi High Court dismisses appeal, rules Right to Education Act ensures access but not the right to choose a specific private school for EWS admission.

"The right to education must be protected, but it does not extend to choosing a particular institution. - Delhi High Court"

New Delhi, April 3

The Delhi High Court has observed that while the Right to Education Act ensures access to education, it does not give a student the right to insist on admission in a specific school.

A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and comprising Justice Tejas Karia made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a mother seeking her child's admission to a particular private school under the EWS category. The Bench upheld the earlier ruling and found no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's decision.

The Court emphasised that the objective of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act is to promote social inclusion and equal opportunity in education. However, this right cannot be interpreted to mean that a parent can demand admission in a school of their personal choice.

In this case, the child had been selected through a computerised draw of lots conducted by the Directorate of Education for admission in a private school. However, when the school did not grant admission, the authorities offered the child a seat in another school, which was among the parents' preferred choices and located at a similar distance.

Despite being offered an alternative, the parent refused to accept the admission and instead approached the Court seeking a direction to the original school to admit the child. The Court noted that such a refusal was not justified, particularly when an arrangement had already been made to secure the child's education.

The bench further observed that there was no interim order granting provisional admission or reserving a seat during the pendency of the case. As a result, once the academic year ended, the right to seek admission in that school also came to an end.

It clarified that courts cannot create additional seats or grant admission in a subsequent academic year after the relevant session has concluded. Allowing such relief would be unfair to other eligible candidates competing for limited seats.

The Court also rejected reliance on a Supreme Court judgment related to medical admissions, stating that such exceptional reliefs apply only in rare cases and within strict timelines, which were not met in the present matter.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and reiterated that while the right to education must be protected, it does not extend to choosing a particular institution or bypassing established procedures.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
Fully agree with the HC. The draw of lots system is meant to be fair. If everyone starts demanding a specific school after losing the draw, the whole system collapses. The right is to education, not to a particular building. 👏
S
Sarah B
While I understand the court's logic, I feel for the parent. In a country where school quality varies wildly, wanting the 'better' option for your child is a natural instinct. The system offered an alternative, but was it truly equal in quality? A tough situation.
V
Vikram M
This is a landmark clarification. The RTE Act's spirit is social inclusion, not creating VIP lists for specific schools. Courts cannot manufacture seats. The parent's stubbornness cost the child a year. Should have taken the offered seat.
A
Aman W
Respectfully, I think the court missed a chance to ask *why* the first school refused admission after the draw. Was there malpractise? The focus should be on ensuring the lottery system is foolproof and schools don't find ways to reject EWS students.
N
Nisha Z
As a teacher, I see both sides. Parents want the best. But the law's objective is clear: provide a seat, not the *best* seat. The government's duty ends at providing a reasonable alternative, which they did. The judgment is correct. Education first, branding later.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50