The Delhi High Court Division Bench dismissed Pooja's appeal seeking EWS admission for Baby Devanshi Jaisawar at Aadharshila Vidyapeeth after the academic year lapsed.
The bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tejas Karia, ruled that the Right to Education Act does not translate into a right to select a specific school.
The Directorate of Education stated that the child was offered an alternative preferred school, which the parent rejected.
The Delhi High Court Division Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tejas Karia, dismissed an appeal seeking Economically Weaker Section (EWS) admission after the academic year lapsed.
The court said that the statutory guarantee of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, does not allow parents to demand placement in a specific private institution.
"Such a right to education cannot be translated into right to select a particular school," the court said.
The ruling establishes that admission claims without interim relief cannot survive indefinitely past the academic calendar.
Origin of the Dispute
The dispute arose from Class 1 EWS quota admission for the 2023–2024 academic session. The child was selected via a computerised draw of lots by the Directorate of Education (DoE) but denied admission by Aadharshila Vidyapeeth. The school deferred the matter, saying it would process the request only after general category admissions concluded.
A Single Judge initially heard the matter but dismissed the writ petition. The judge said that because the 2023–2024 academic year had already concluded, the claim was extinguished. The benefit of a draw of lots remains strictly tied to the specific academic cycle.
Arguments and Alternative Offers
The appellant challenged the initial dismissal, arguing that judicial delay should not penalise the child. The parent cited the Supreme Court precedent S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, asserting that courts can grant admissions after an academic year closes to deliver justice.
The Directorate of Education (DoE) countered this claim during the proceedings. The DoE said that the child was offered admission to an alternative preferred school, which the parent rejected. The authorities argued their statutory obligation was fulfilled once they provided a viable alternative from the parent's preference list.
Limits of Judicial Intervention
Addressing the timeline, the Division Bench said that claims must end with the session unless protected by a court order. "If there is neither any interim order of provisional admission or directing reserving of a seat… the right of the student… would perish with the coming to an end of the academic year," the court said.
Reviving these claims later would prejudice new applicants. "Allowing such reliefs beyond the academic year would unsettle the entire admission framework and adversely impact other EWS candidates awaiting admission," the bench added.
The court rejected the appellant's primary legal defence regarding medical admissions. "The reliance on S. Krishna Sradha is misplaced, as the said decision was rendered in a distinct factual and statutory context," the judges said.
Systemic discipline takes priority over individual delays. "Judicial intervention cannot be extended to the extent of rewriting admission cycles or creating rights where none exist in law," the court said.
Legal representation included Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr. Vipul Singh for the appellant, and Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Ms. Chandrika Sachdeva, and Mr. Dhruv Kumar for the respondents.
