Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

40. This is incorrect. The question before the Court in Jatin Singh (supra) was whether a specified number of seats could have been allotted to SCs and STs in the 25% quota reserved for EWS/DG under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. In the facts of that case, 15% of the W.P.(C) 1225/2014 Page 33 seats (6 seats) in the 25% quota (10 seats) had been earmarked for SC, 7.5% for ST (3 seats) and the remaining 2.5% (1 seat) for other members of EWS/DG outside of the SC/ST category i.e. non creamy layer OBC, economically weak section, children with disability etc. This sub-classification was challenged on the ground that it was unconstitutional for being discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of the RTE Act. This Court reasoned that neither the definition of "disadvantaged group" nor Section 3 "make any classification among the children as to their entitlement to the benefit of the Act". Consequently, while applying Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE, the school should consider all EWS/DG category students without further sub-dividing the quota of 25% between groups. The Court further held:

41. This Court however is of the opinion that the 25% quota earmarked for EWS/DG in Section 12(1)(b) and (c) was made pursuant to the logic of Article 15 of the Constitution. In other words, the quota for the children falling within the categories defined in Sections 2(d) and (e) of the RTE Act were delineated in pursuance of the discretionary powers of the State under Article 15(3), (4) and (5) of the Constitution. This being the case, it would be incumbent upon the State to ensure that all children falling within Sections 2(d) and (e) of the RTE Act stand an equal chance at being included within the 25% earmarked for these categories. At the very least, all the groups W.P.(C) 1225/2014 Page 35 falling within Sections 2(d) and 2(e) must be ensured a chance to be beneficiaries of a reservation commensurate to the nature of their disadvantage. Not permitting this by leaving the selection into the EWS/DG categories to an open lottery could very well be exclusionary in that the quota could predominantly be filled in by economically weaker section candidates, thus leaving no seats for SC/ST candidates. This equally probable hypothetical would do violence to the constitutionally mandated reservations under Article 15(4). The reasoning in Jatin Singh (supra) that Article 15(4) merely enables reservations and that for reservations under that Article, a separate statutory sanction is necessary, is incorrect. Contrary to the import of that decision, Article 15(1)-(4) enables the State to legislate, and create classifications, through an enactment (in this case, the RTE Act), without imposing any further requirement of an independent sanction under Article 15(4).

52. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the petitioner's argument is merited and has to prevail. First, the imperative of Section 26 is that the Government has to ensure that all CWSN are given access to education till age 18. Such being the case, neither the neighbourhood criteria (based on a statutory stipulation in Section 12, RTE) nor the point based admission system, directed by the impugned order can be allowed to prevail over that obligation, which is underscored by Section 26 (b) to (d) as well as Section 27-29 of the PWD Act. This Court therefore has no hesitation in holding that the imposition of the neighbourhood criteria, in substitution of the previously existing discretion to admit CWSN allowed to unaided schools, is contrary to the provisions of Section 26 of the PWD Act read with Section 3(3) of the RTE Act. The neighbourhood criterion in Section 12 has to yield to the dictates of Section 26 of the PWD Act. Second, the neighbourhood principle - in Section 12 as well as the impugned order - operates, and can operate in the case of CWSN, on the presupposition that there are a sufficient number of schools in each neighbourhood equipped to cater to the needs of all kinds of CWSN in that neighbourhood. Indeed, this is not the case here. To relegate CWSN in favour of the neighbourhood criteria, when it is an admitted position that most neighbourhoods do not have schools that cater to CWSN, would amount to deliberately subverting Section 26 of the PWD Act, and the right of CWSN to an education under Article 21A of the Constitution, manifested through Section 3 of the RTE Act.