Sanskriti School Admissions: Delhi HC Says Delhi Judicial Service Cannot Be Included In Civil Services Category For Reservation Benefit

Dismissing the petition filed by the daughter of a lower court judge for admission under government quota in the Sanskriti School, the Delhi High Court has said Delhi Judicial Service officers cannot be included in the category of Central Officers (Group A) category for the purposes of the reservation scheme in the educational institution.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh passed the verdict on a petition contending that a judicial officer, who is holding a Civil Group A Gazetted Post by virtue of Rule 3(c) of the Delhi Judicial Rules 1970, has to be treated on a par with a government servant holding corresponding post in accordance with Rule 33 of DJS Rules.

60 percent seats in Sanskriti School are reserved for children of officials of Civil Services, Defence Cadre and allied Services like Group-A Civil Service. 

The Court in the order said the reservation made by the School for admission was in the nature of welfare measures for a limited category of Government Officers and that the categories included in Quota did not specify the Delhi Judicial Service.

"Moreover, even if interpreted in accordance with the DJS Rules, Rule 3(c), the services under Delhi Judiciary cannot be included in the category of the "eligible Central Service Officers (Group A)" as has been provided for as per the Central Staffing Scheme," the Court held.

The court also noted that admission in the school is granted on the basis of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2016 and that the school has the liberty to maintain the reservation in accordance with its requirements and apex court directions. 

"The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus for directions to the respondent School for admission under the Government Category, however, the Delhi Judicial Service, certainly does not find mention in the reservation scheme and neither can be included even in the wider representation of Civil Services or the Defence Services," the court added further.

Supreme Court in 2016 had said that the wards of officers of All India Service, Indian Foreign Service and other eligible Central Service Officers (Group A) on deputation or transfer in Delhi will be eligible for admission under the 60 percent quota. 

The petitioner's father had joined the Delhi Judicial Service and become a permanent member after completion of probation period. The school in 2018 had denied petitioner's candidature as it refused to acknowledge Delhi Judicial Service as Civil Service on the ground of its members not being recruited by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the girl's father was holding Civil Group A Gazetted Post by virtue of Rule 3(c) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules. The Rule 33 of DJS Rules states, "In respect of all such matters regarding the conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these rules, the rules or orders, for the time being in force, and applicable to Government Servants holding corresponding posts in connection with the affairs of the Union of India shall regulate the conditions of such service"

It was thus submitted that the school's refusal to acknowledge Delhi Judicial Service as civil service on the ground of its members not being recruited by the UPSC was contrary to law.

On the other hand, the school administration submitted that the Delhi Judicial Service was not a 'Civil Service' as there exist no relationship of master and servant between the State and the person holding the post. It was also argued that the plea was not maintainable against the school, as being a private institution it was not amenable to High Court's writ jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the petition while observing that the petitioner was ineligible to apply under school's reserved category and was thus denied admission.

"In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition is dismissed along with pending applications, if any," the Court said.

Title: SHREYA BHARDWAJ THROUGH HER GUARDIAN v. SANSKRITI SCHOOL AND ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 885

Click Here To Read Order