Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Delhi High Court directes School to admit a girl in class 6th #RTE

 

Delhi High Court (V. K. Jain J) yesterday  while disposing of the petition directed the principal of Rajkiya Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalaya, Patparganj to grant admission to Gauri Kumari in class VI by Thursday this week. These directions came on the petition filed by 14 years old student Gauri through Advocate Ashok Agarwal seeking directions for admission in the school as the school was denying admission on the alleged ground of non-availability of seat.

 

Ashok Agarwal Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has earlier been studying in Sarvodaya Kanaya Vidhaylaya-1002031, Patparganj.. Lastly she was studying in class 6 in the year 2010-11. During July 2010, her family started facing severe poverty that forces her mother not only to withdraw Gauri from the school but also to send her to an Orphanage in Haridwar where she stayed nearly for 2 years. There was no provision for education for the petitioner in the Orphanage. Her mother realized that she should bring the petitioner back to home. Accordingly she brought back the petitioner from the Orphanage to home and started approaching the School for admission in class 8 as class 8 would be the age appropriate class for her. However, the principal of the said school denied her admission saying that “No seats available”.

 

Gauri will now go to the school once again from Thursday, 18.07.2013 and complete her school.

 

A copy of the petition is pasted below

 

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate

M-09811101923

16.07.2013

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELH AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C). No 4418 OF 2013

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Civil writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Violation of fundamental and human right of petitioner to free and compulsory education as guaranteed by Art. 21 and  21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 3 &  4 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Impugned action of the respondents in denying admission to the petitioner in Government School nearby her residence thereby violating her fundamental right and failure on the part of the respondents in performing their constitutional duty to provide admission to her in any neighborhood school.

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Km. Gauri Kumari ( minor) through her next friend and natural mother Smt. Nirmala W/o  Sh. Chotey Lal, R/o B-103, Jawahar Mohalla,  Patparganj, Delhi-110091.

——-Petitioner

Versus

1.                 Director of Education , Government of N.C.T. of Delhi,

Old Secretariat, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.

 

2.                 The Principal, Rajkiya Sarvodya Kanya Vidhayalaya, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, Patparganj, Delhi-110091.

——-Respondents

 

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Hon’ble Delhi High Court And his companion justices of the said High court

 

Respectfully showeath:-

 

1.                 That the present writ petition is directed against the impugned action of the respondents in illegally and unjustifiably denying admission to the petitioner in a respondent no.2-school in class 8 in the academic year, 2013-14 thereby violating her fundamental right as guaranteed to her by the Art. 21 & 21-A of the Constitution of India and the legal right created by section 3 & 4 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the RTE , Act, 2009 in a neighborhood school.

 

2.                 That the petitioner by way of present writ petition raises following questions of law general as well as public importance:-

 

a.           Whether the impugned action of the respondents in denying the admission to the petitioner in class-8 in academic year 2013-14 is illegal, unjustified, unconstitutional and violative of Art, 14 ,  21 & 21-A of the Constitution of  India and the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009?

 

3.                 That the brief facts of the case that led to the filing of the present writ petition are narrated hereinafter in brief.

 

4.                 That Km. Gauri Kumari D/o Sh. Chotey Lal, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is a 13 years old Girl, who wants to continue her studies despite all odds. She being a minor is being represented by her next friend and natural mother.

 

5.                 That the petitioner has earlier been studying in Sarvodaya Kanaya Vidhaylaya-1002031, Patparganj, the respondent no.2-School. Lastly she was studying in class 6 in the year 2010-11. During July 2010, her family started facing severe poverty that forces her mother not only to withdraw Gauri from the school but also to send her to an Orphanage in Haridwar where she stayed nearly for 2 years. There was no provision for education for the petitioner in the Orphanage.

 

6.                 That the petitioner’s mother realized that she should brought the petitioner back to home. Accordingly she brought back the petitioner from the Orphanage to home and started approaching the respondent no.2 School for admission in class 8 as class 8 would be the age appropriate class for her. However, the principal of the said school, the respondent no.2, denied her admission saying that “ No seats available”.

 

7.                 That it is very unfortunate that the principal of the respondent no.2 -school has failed to realize that in terms of Section 4 of the Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Gauri has a legal right for re-admission in an age appropriate class i.e. Class 8 in the academic year 2013-14. The respondent no.2 was very insensitive as she has failed to appreciate that young girl Gauri Kumari despite of all odds in her life had come forward to continue her studies.

 

8.                 That the petitioner has been denied re-admission in class 8 th by the respondent no.2 in utter violation of the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India.

 

9.                 That the respondent no.2 is the school nearby residence of the petitioner and as such is the neighborhood school in respect of the petitioner as provided under Section 3 of the RTE Act, 2009. The petitioner in view of Section 3 of the said Act is legally entitled to get admission in the said school.

 

10.            That the petitioner approached the Social Jurist, a civil right group. The Advisor, social jurist wrote a letter dated 07.05.2013 to the Education Minister thereby bringing to her knowledge the callous, unsympathetic and indifferent attitude of the officials of the education department and requesting for immediate action in the matter to ensure admission of the petitioner in the respondent-school or any other school nearby her residence.

 

11.            That the pursuant to the said letter and apparently on intervention of the Education Minister, the respondent no.2 called the petitioner in school. However, instead of granting her admission in the school, the school principal threatened her and by putting pressure got undesirable words written on a paper and got signed by the said child. The action of the respondent no.2 was absolutely unwarranted and unbecoming of a good teacher and shows insensitive, indifferent and apathetic attitude of teachers in the government school towards child right and education.

 

12.            That the petitioner complained about the said incident to the Social Jurist. The Advisor, Social Jurist again wrote letter dated 29.06.2013 to the  Education Minister thereby narrating the entire incident and requesting for stern action in the matter and to ensure re-admission of the petitioner in respondent no.2-school. However till date no response has been received nor the petitioner has been granted admission in school.

 

A true copy of the letter dated 07.05.2013 written by the Advisor, Social Jurist, is annexed herewith as Annexure-P1. A true copy of the letter of the petitioner is annexed herewith asAnnexure-P2. A true copy of the letter dated 29.06.2013 written by the Advisor, Social Jurist to the Delhi Education Minister is annexed herewith as Annexure-P3.

 

13.            That It is very unfortunate that a girl who overcoming all the obstacles of life including financial distress and poverty of her family, is seeking an opportunity to study but the very neighborhood school denied admission to her on the alleged ground of no-availability of seat.

 

14.            That the petitioner had been deprived of her fundamental and human right to education as guaranteed to her under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009.

 

15.            That the respondents in view of the Article 21 and 21-A of the constitution of India and Sections 3 & 4 of the RTE Act, 2009  are under duty to provide admission to the petitioner in their school or any other Government school nearby her residence in a class appropriate to her age and admission can not be denied to her on the ground of non-availability of seat. The respondents are bound to make arrangement for the free and compulsory education of the petitioner.

 

16.            That the petitioner challenges the impugned action of the respondents on the following grounds amongst others:-

 

A.   Because the impugned action of the respondents in denying admission to the petitioner in the respondent no.2-school which is the neighborhood school in respect of the petitioner, is illegal, unjustified, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14, 21, 21-A of the Constitution of India.

 

B.   Because the respondents have deprived the petitioner of her fundamental and human right to education as guaranteed to her under Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009.

 

C.   Because the respondents in view of the Article 21 and 21-A of the constitution of India and Section 3 & 4 of the RTE Act, 2009  are under duty to provide admission to the petitioner in their school or any other Government school nearby her residence.

 

D.   Because the petitioner is entitled to get admission in respondent no.2-school in class-VIII in the academic year 2013-14 nearby her residence and to get free education and the respondents are under constitutional duty to make arrangement for her free education.

 

E.    Because the impugned action of the respondents is also otherwise illegal and bad in law.

 

17.            That the petitioner has no other equally efficacious or alternative remedy available to him except to approach the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under section 226 of the Constitution of India.

 

18.            That the petitioner has not filed any other similar petition against the impugned action in this Hon’ble court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or any other High Court in India.

 

19.            That this Hon’ble Court has the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue in dispute and grant the petitioner the relief as prayed for in as much as the subject matter is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

In the aforesaid premise, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue:-

 

I.                   a writ of mandamus and certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions thereby directing the respondents to forthwith grant admission to the petitioner in Class-VIII in the academic year, 2013-14 in the respondent no.2 -school or any other school nearby her residence; and

 

II.                Any other, order or direction or such further orders or directions as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

 

And for the act or kindness the petitioner shall in duty bound and pray forever.

 

Ashok Aggarwal & M.N. Singh

Advocates for the petitioner

Ch. No. 483, Block-II, Delhi High Court,

Block-II, Lawyers chamber,

 Delhi High Court, New Delhi-1100

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: