Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and R.I. Chagla, JJ., addressed a petition revolving around the Right to Education Act, 2009.
In the instant petition, petitioner sought directions against respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith grant admission to his son as per the allotment letter issued to the petitioner by the competent authorities under Right to Education Act, 2009 in Standard I during the academic year 2020-21 and 2021-22.
Petitioner’s son was issued a certificate of disability of persons with autism by Nair Hospital and sometime in the year 2019, he applied for online admission of his son under the RTE Act, 2009.
Later, respondents 3 and 4 granted admission to petitioner in the respondent 1 school. The admission was granted after verification of the documents submitted before the committee.
Further, the petitioner made a representation to the Education Department informing that though the petitioner had visited the respondent 1 school in the month of August, 2019, the Administrative Officer refused to grant admission to the petitioner in spite of the letter of allotment issued by the authority. Hence the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law and Decision
It was noted that respondent 2 had been granted a certificate of ‘minority education institution’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution Act, 2004 on 17-02-2020 and respondents 1 and 2 were issued a letter in favour of the petitioner for granting admission to the son of the petitioner in the respondent no.1 school much prior to the date of such certificate.
Hence, respondents 1 and 2 were thus required to comply with the said directives issued by the competent authority within the time prescribed therein which was much prior to the said date of certificate.
Upon raising a query upon the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 whether any other students had been admitted by respondents 1 and 2 prior to the date of obtaining such certificate dated 17-02-2020 under the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, learned counsel fairly on instructions states that four students were admitted prior to 17th February, 2020 based on the directives issued by the Education Department under the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 could not dispute that the respondents could not have cancelled the admission once granted to the petitioner on the ground of minority status granted subsequently.
Bench opined that respondents 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to take advantage of such certificate obtained after committing default in complying with the directives which were already issued prior to the date of such certificate.
The disobedience of the directives issued by the Education Department cannot be condoned by obtaining certificate as minority education institution subsequently.
Medical certificate by the petitioner indicated that the recommendation made by the Department of Psychiatry were that the petitioner’s son should continue in a regular school with various further advise.
Therefore, Court directed the respondent 1 and 2 to comply with the directives issued by the Education Department and to grant admission to the son of the petitioner in respondent 1 school within one week.
In view of the above, petition was disposed of. [Ashish Patel v. Edubridge International School, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1587, decided on 5-08-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
Mr C. R. Sadasivan, a/w. Mr Anup Dhannawat for the Petitioner.
Mr Pradeep Bakhru, a/w. Ms Upasana Vasu i/b. M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Respondents 1 and 2.
Mr Milind More, Additional Government Pleader for the State – Respondents 3 and 4.
