Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shrishti Sharma Thru. Guardian ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 September, 2015
-1-
WP No.5641/2014
03/09/2015
Ms Neelam Abhyankar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the respondents
No.1 and 2.
None for the respondent No.3 and no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3.
The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the in-action on the part of the respondents in not granting admission to the petitioner in Divine Convent School, Dewas.
The order of the District Education Officer dated 02-04-2013 reflects that they have four seats in Class-I for granting admission under the Right to Information Quota and admission has been granted to one Kumari Priyansi Karanjia, meaning thereby only one admission was granted out of the four seats.
The reasons assigned in the order dated 02-04-2013 is that the ration card submitted by the petitioner's father was in the name of Shri Radhyeshaym Anandilal. The second reason has been assigned that the last date to submit the application was 25-06-2012 and the petitioner has submitted application on 29-06-2012. On the contrary -2- the information supplied by the school vide letter dated 28-07-2012 reflects that School has denied admission to the petitioner Kum Shrishti Sharma on the ground that school is granting admission only in Nursery Classes under the Right to Education Quota. Section 3 and Section 15 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Eduction Act, 2009 and Rules, 2010 reads as under :-
"3. Right of child to free and compulsory education- (1) Every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighborhood school till completion of elementary education. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her pursuing and completing the elementary education :
Provided that a child suffering from disability, as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1996 (1 of 1996), shall have the right to pursue free and compulsory elementary Education in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the said Act.
15. No denial of admission- A child shall be admitted in a school at the commencement of the academic year or within such extended period as may be prescribed :
Provided that no child shall be denied admission if such admission is sought subsequent to the extended period :
Provided further that any child admitted after the extended periods shall complete his studies in such manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government."
The aforesaid statutory provisions of law makes it very clear that school was under an obligation for granting admission to a child in Class-I. Not only this, out of four -3- seats reserved for children under the Right to Education Quota, only one seat was filled up in the year 2013. The school while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner has assigned some other reasons that is that they are granting admission in Nursery Classes and the learned Education Officer has assigned some other reason that the application of the petitioner was not submitted in time. Lateron a contrary stand has been taken by the respondents No. 1 to 3, it appears that the District Education Officer is trying to help the School for the reasons best known to him.
This court is of the considered opinion that there were four seats available, out of which only one seat has been filled up under the Right to Education Quota reserved for Right to Education Quota and the petitioner who fulfills the terms and conditions was entitled for admission in the academic year 2012-2013 in Class-I under the Right to Education Quota.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also demonstrated before this court that the petitioner's father and her grand fathers are persons belonging to list of persons below the poverty line. Meaning thereby, otherwise also they are entitled for admission of their child in school in question under the Right to Education Quota. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed with the following directions :-
"1. The petitioner has already been granted -4- admission in the year 2012-2013 in the school in question and therefore her admission shall be treated as admission under the quota fixed for children in light of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Eduction Act, 2009 and Rules, 2010.
2. The respondent No.3 School shall refund the entire tuition fee charged from the petitioner within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
3. The respondent shall treat the petitioner as a child admitted under the Right to Education Quota for subsequent academic years also, keeping in view the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Eduction Act, 2009 and Rules, 2010."
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE RP