Article 21A Does Not Confer Constitutional Right On Any Child To Be Educated In Particular School Of Choice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that Article 21A of the Constitution of India is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen and does not confer on any child a constitutional right to be educated in a particular school of his or her choice.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that such a right would arise only if the child applies to the Directorate of Education (DoE) as an EWS (economically weaker section) student for admission in the entry level class for that year and is shortlisted in the computerized draw of lots.

“Absent such application, holding of a computerized draw of lots and shortlisting of a child for admission to a particular class in a particular school, no right to seek such admission enures in favour of the child,” the court said.

It added: “The right available under Article 21A of the Constitution or under Section 12 of the RTE Act is only to free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen, not for being provided such education in a particular school.”

Justice Shankar was dealing with a plea moved by a 7 year old girl through her mother seeking a direction upon a school to grant her admission as an EWS student in Class II for the academic session 2023-24.

The draw of lots was conducted by the DoE following which she was shortlisted for admission to Class I in Maharaja Agrasen Model School for the academic session 2022-23. It was her case that despite her mother visiting the school on several occasions, the school refused to admit her.

It was submitted that the school could not have refused to grant admission to her after her name was shortlisted for admission following the computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE.

Justice Shankar observed that there was no dispute that the girl never applied to DoE for admission as an EWS student in Class II for the year 2023-2024 and thus, without such an application, her name was not subjected to any draw of lots for such admission.

“Absent such draw of lots and absent any resultant allocation of any school to Jiya for the academic year 2023-2024, Jiya has no enforceable right in law to seek such admission in that year to any particular school,” the court said.

It added that no child, without an application suffering the rigour of the said exercise, can directly claim a right to be admitted to a particular class in a particular school in a particular year as an EWS student.

“Each year constitutes a fresh academic session. A child, who, for whatever reason, is unable to secure admission into a school as an EWS candidate despite having been shortlisted therefor by the DoE, and allows that academic year to pass without initiating any legal action in that regard, cannot claim, that on the basis of the said shortlisting, that she or he has an enforceable right to admission in that school for the next academic year to the next higher class,” the court said.

It added: “There is no such automatic carry forward of the right which enures in favour of the student, consequent to the draw of lots conducted by the DoE for a particular academic year, to the next academic year, in that class or in any higher class. Rights, it must be appreciated, extinguish with time.”

While rejecting the prayer for admission to class II, the court however directed DoE to make every endeavour to ensure that the girl is granted admission as an EWS student in Class II in some other school.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Mr. Manoj Kumar, and Mr. Kumar Utkarsh, Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Adv. with Ms. Nicole Gomez, Adv. and Ms. Adyanshi Kashyap, Adv. for R-1; Mr. Utkarsh Singh and Ms. Prasansha Sharma for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC (Civil) for DoE

Title: JIYA THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MS. SUSHMA v. MAHARAJA AGRASEN MODEL SCHOOL & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 375

Click here to read order