Case Analysis
Arpit v Adriel High School
Introduction:
The honourable Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishna vs State of Andra Pradesh,
19931 held that Article 21A of the constitution requires the stare to provide free and
compulsory education to all children between the age of 6 and 14 years of age and with the
efforts of the government this constitutional provision was later operationalized in 2009
through Right of children to free and compulsory education Act.
Section 12 of the Right to Education Act laid down guidelines to explain the responsibility of
schools for providing free and compulsory education to children that all the government
school shall provide free and compulsory education to all children.
Facts of the case:
1. for facilitating the admission process and to ensure uniformity, the Directorate of education
(DoE) launched a computerised online admission process wherein it also posted various
circulars and procedure to be followed. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the admission
under the EWS/DG category in KG/Pre-primary for the academic session 2023-2024 by
submitting necessary documents.
2. As per the circular of the DOE, the Draw of Lots was organised and the name of the
present petitioner was drawn for the admission in the school (respondent).
3. When the petitioner approached the school/respondent for admission the respondent told
him that his name was in waiting list and after subsequent inquiries by petitioner he was
intimated by respondent that all seats has been filled.
4. despite various request for verification of document and admission to be conducted the
school blatantly responded that till the seats of the general category is not filled, they cannot
give admission to the EWS children. Such statement in itself is contrary to RTE act which
made it a statutory requirement to reserve 25% seats for EWS/DG category.
Arguments of the petitioner:
The petitioner contended that because Article 21-A of the Constitution of India puts a
categorical obligation on State to provide free and compulsory education to all children in age
group of 6 to 14 years of age and It is to ensure this fundamental right granted by the
Constitution that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was
promulgated, which inter alia under Section 12 thereof mandates that every school shall
admit at least 25% of the strength of its class, children belonging economically to weaker
sections and disadvantaged groups and provide them free and compulsory elementary
1
[Link]
education. Also the Petitioner has shown his eligibility to apply under the EWS/DG and
CWSN Category for admissions for the academic session 2023-24 by showing/submitting all
relevant documents such as Income Proof/certificate, Caste.
The petitioner has asked to issued a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing respondent school to grant admission to the petitioner.
Arguments of the Respondent:
The respondent initially asserted that petitioner had not initially selected their school.
They also contended that the school had communicated with the DOE requesting a reduction
in EWS seats before the draw of lots and since this representation was made prior to the
draw, the outcome of the draws shouldn't be binding. Moreover they claimed that the DOE
didn't follow the neighbourhood criterion when allotting the school to the petitioner.
Judgement:
The Court relied on Neeraj Kumar v. Venkateshwar Global School, 2017 which
established that provisional admission cannot be granted after 31st December of an academic
year. However, the Court noted that this principle was not universally upheld and was subject
to interpretation.
The Court then referred to the Baby Nikshita Case2, which established that December 31
cutoff date should not hinder the granting of provisional admission to deserving students. The
Court ordered that provisional admission granted to the petitioner in the respondent school as
an EWS candidate in accordance with RTE act and would be entitled to all amenities and
conveniences to which such a student is entitled such as textbook and uniforms.
The writ petition was allowed.
Analysis:
The case revolves around the refusal of Adriel High School to admit Arpit, a student from the
economically weaker section (EWS), despite his selection through a computerized draw of
lots conducted by the Directorate of Education (DoE) for the academic year 2023-24. The
petitioner, represented by his counsel, argues that the school is bound by the outcome of the
DoE's draw of lots and is legally obligated to admit Arpit as an EWS candidate. The school's
refusal is challenged on the grounds that once the DoE publishes the EWS seat matrix and
conducts the draw of lots, schools cannot refuse admission to selected students. In defense,
the school's counsel cites previous judgments, arguing that no provisional admission should
be ordered after December 31 of the academic year, referencing cases such as Neeraj Kumar
v. Venkateshwar Global School and Radha Krishan v. Bal Bharti Public School. However,
the court highlights that a Division Bench in Baby Nikshita v. DoE had indicated that the cut-
2
[Link]
2024-dhc-3516-delhi-high-court-1533760
off date of December 31 requires reconsideration, thus not serving as an absolute deadline.
Consequently, the court finalizes Arpit's provisional admission, affirming his right to regular
admission and entitlements under the RTE Act. The ruling emphasizes judicial consistency
and the precedence of ensuring EWS students' rights to education, aligning with similar
previous judgments and reinforcing the obligations of schools under the DoE's EWS
admission process.
Conclusion:
The judgment in Arpit v. Adriel High School is a significant step toward enforcing
educational equity under the Right to Education Act, 2009. The Court's decision emphasizes
the importance of adhering to statutory obligations, especially when they pertain to
fundamental rights of children. It sends a strong message that non-compliance by schools
with RTE provisions will not be tolerated and that the interests of marginalized students must
be prioritized over administrative convenience or institutional preferences.
