A student doesn't have a "right" to admission to a private un-aided minority school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and granting admission is the absolute discretion of the school, the Bombay High Court has held.The court cited the Supreme Court judgement in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India wherein it was held that a...
A student doesn't have a "right" to admission to a private un-aided minority school under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and granting admission is the absolute discretion of the school, the Bombay High Court has held.
The court cited the Supreme Court judgement in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India wherein it was held that a Private Un-aided Minority School is not covered by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
"Such being the position, there would be no corresponding right vested in a student to seek admission to such a School and that it would be absolutely within the discretion and of the prerogative of the Private Minority Un-aided School," the bench observed.
The bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and GA Sanap passed the order while refusing to allow an amendment to challenge the rejection of the petitioner's application form, seeking admission to standard 1 of the Centre Point School, Dabha Branch, run by Mother's Pet Education Society.
The petitioner was further aggrieved by the delayed communication of rejection of application form.
However, the court refused relief even on the second ground. "There may be delay in communication of rejection of the application form by the School to the petitioner, but this delay in communication by itself would not create any right in the petitioner to seek admission to such a School."
It added that at the most the petitioner would have to pursue an alternate civil remedy for the loss which may have occurred to the petitioner due to the delay in communication.
Accordingly the bench disposed of the petition.
"We would have certainly considered the amendment application moved by the petitioner had there been any possibility of its bearing out any fruitful result," the court said.
Case Title: Master Dhairya Pritesh Bansod .vs. The Principal, Mothers Pet Kindergarten, Nagpur and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 238
Click Here To Read/Download Order