Pooja as Guardian of Baby Devanshi v. Aadharshila Vidyapeeth - Guardianship School Admission

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |
| Negatively Viewed by Court | |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 5, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Pooja As Guardian Of Baby Devanshi ... vs Aadharshila Vidyapeeth & Anr on 25 March, 2026

$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      %                                           Date of Decision : 25.03.2026

                      +     LPA 810/2024, CM APPL. 48040/2024, CM APPL. 48041/2024 &
                            CM APPL. 66934/2025

                            POOJA AS GUARDIAN OF BABY DEVANSHI
                            JAISAWAR                                 .....Appellant
                                         Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr. Vipul
                                                  Singh, Advocates.
                                         versus
                            AADHARSHILA VIDYAPEETH & ANR.            .....Respondents
                                         Through: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv for R-1.
                                                  Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, PC, GNCTD
                                                  with Ms. Chandrika Sachdeva and
                                                  Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocates for
                                                  R-2.
                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

                      TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 48039/2024 (Delay)

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments
   made in the instant Application.

2. The prayer made is allowed and the delay of 72 days in filing the
   present Appeal stands condoned.

3. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of.

4. The present intra court Appeal is directed against the Judgment and
   Order dated 08.05.2024 ("Impugned Judgment") passed in W.P.(C)

                      13354/2023 ("Writ Petition"), whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed
                     the Writ Petition relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ankit Kumar v.
                     GNCTD, Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3161.
   

5. The Appellant has filed this Appeal specifically to challenge the
   conclusions reached in Paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 of the Impugned Judgment.
   The Impugned Judgment observed that although Respondent No. 1 - School
   lacked a legitimate basis for refusing admission to the Appellant's ward, the
   expiration of the relevant Academic Year precluded the Court from issuing
   an order for admission in the subsequent Academic Year. The Appellant
   maintains that she has been unjustly penalized as her Writ Petition was filed
   within the same Academic Year in which the admission was denied.
   Accordingly, the Appellant has prayed for moulding the relief to ensure
   justice is delivered to her ward.

6. The Appellant had applied for admission of her ward in Respondent
   No. 1 - School in EWS / DG / CWSN category for Class I for the Academic
   Year 2023-2024 by submitting necessary documents such as caste
   certificate, income certificate, etc. During the draw of lots conducted by
   Respondent No. 2, Directorate of Education ("DoE"), held on 14.03.2023,
   name of the Appellant's ward was selected for admission in Respondent No.
   1 - School.

7. The Appellant had approached Respondent No. 1 - School for
   verification of the documents and complete the admission process, but she
   was denied entry and advised that she would receive further communication
   from Respondent No. 1 - School. The Appellant subsequently sent multiple
   communications to Respondent No. 1 - School and Respondent No. 2 -
   DoE, requesting admission for her ward. Despite being allotted a seat at

                      Respondent No. 1 - School, the Appellant was informed that admission for
                     EWS children could not be granted until all seats for the general category
                     were filled. Accordingly, the Appellant's ward was placed on a waiting list
                     to be admitted only after the general category seats had been filled.
   

8.  Accordingly, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition on 07.10.2023
                     before this Court seeking direction against Respondent No. 1 - School to
                     grant admission in terms of the list of selected candidates through the draw
                     of lots conducted by Respondent No. 2 - DoE, for the Academic Year 2023-
                     2024.
   

9.  On the first date of hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned Counsel
                     appearing for Respondent No. 1 - School sought time to take instructions as
                     to the availability of seat in Class I. On 15.12.2023, the learned Counsel for
                     Respondent No. 1 - School requested for adjournment, however, the learned
                     Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - DoE, submitted that as
                     per the data circulated by the DoE, there were vacancies in Respondent No.
                     1 - School in Class I for the Academic Year 2023-2024.
   

10. On 21.12.2023, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 - School
                      informed the learned Single Judge that the name of the Appellant's ward
                      was not in the list of seats allotted to Respondent No. 1 - School and,
                      accordingly, the Respondents were directed to file the Counter Affidavit.
    

11. On 04.03.2024, the learned Single Judge passed the following order in
                      the Writ Petition:
    

"1. This is a case in which, after a draw of lots was conducted by
the Director of Education (DoE) for allocating EWS students to
Class I in various schools, and allocations were made, including the
allocation of the petitioner to Respondent 1 school, the DoE
accepted the later representation made by Respondent 1 school and

reduced the number of EWS seats available in the said school from 4
to 2.

1. The school is seeking to capitalize on this decision to say that
   

   the petitioner cannot now seek a direction to the school to admit her.

2. If the DoE is to accept the representations after draw of lots
   

   for a particular year is already conducted and EWS students
   informed of the schools to which they are assigned and, accepting
   the representations, is to reduce a number of EWS seats available, it
   can create a situation of utter chaos. This is what has happened in
   the present case.

3. I do not see how, once, on the basis of data placed by the
   

   DoE in the public domain, and after the schools have been given a
   chance to seek correction in the data within a stipulated time,
   whereafter alone the computerized draw of lots is conducted and, on
   the basis of the said draw of lots, EWS children are allocated to
   different schools, the DoE can revisit the decision and reduce the
   number of EWS seats in one or more of the schools to which the
   allocation has already taken place.

4. At this juncture, Mr. Anil Johnson submits, on behalf of the
   

   Respondent 1 school that, in fact, the representation which came to
   be allowed by the DoE and on the basis of which a number of EWS
   seats in Respondent 1 school were reduced, was actually preferred
   much prior to the allocation of the petitioner to Respondent 1
   school. He submits that, in fact, in the present case, it is the DoE
   which is in error as it allocated EWS students to Respondent 1
   school in excess of the number of seats which had been
   communicated by Respondent 1 school to the DoE. When the
   Respondent 1 school noticed this, they promptly wrote to the DoE
   requiring the DoE to size down the number of EWS seats available
   with the Respondent 1 school for the year 2023-2024 in Class I. It is
   that representation which has come to be allowed subsequently.

5. If that be so, Respondent 1 school may be entitled to the
   

   benefit of the subsequent order of the DoE.

6. Mr. Narang, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
   

   the petitioner was allocated to the Spring Fields School by the DoE,
   but that school provides education only till Class VIII.

7.  Mr. Utkarsh Singh, learned Counsel for the DoE submits that
   

   it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner to raise any objection in
   that regard, as the Spring Fields School was one of the schools
   identified by the petitioner for admission at the time when he filled
   up his EWS form.

8.  It is not in dispute that the DoE does not indicate, on its
   

   website, the classes upto which the schools available for allocations
   to EWS students, impart education. An EWS student, or her or his
   parents, cannot be expected to surf the web and find out the details
   of the various schools available for admission. The DoE is required,
   therefore, to clearly mention the class upto which the various
   schools, available for allocation of EWS students in a particular
   year, provide education.

9. If, therefore, the respondents cannot be compelled to admit
   the petitioner, Mr. Utkarsh Singh has been put on notice that the
   DoE would have to allocate the petitioner an alternate school, which
   provides education till Class XII.

10. Mr. Utkarsh Singh seeks some time to place his stand on
    affidavit.

11. A further and final opportunity of four weeks is granted to the
    

    DoE to file its reply with advance copy to learned Counsel for the
    petitioner. Rejoinders to the replies of both the respondents may be
    filed before the next date of hearing."

12. When the Writ Petition was next taken up by the learned Single
    Judge, the Impugned Judgment was passed as under:

"1. The petitioner is a student belonging to the Economically
Weaker Section (EWS). In accordance with Section 12 of the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ("the RTE
Act ") read with various circulars issued by the Directorate of
Education (DoE), the petitioner applied for admission to Class I in,
among others, the respondent school, as an EWS category student.

1. A computerized draw of lots was conducted by the DoE, following which the petitioner was found entitled to admission to Class I in the respondent school against KG/Pre-primary seats in

the year 2022-2023, which had not been filled by the respondent
school. The principle of carry forward of such seats has been
affirmed by this Court in a number of decisions including Siddharth
International Public School v. Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal1,
rendered by a Division Bench.

1. Despite having been thus shortlisted for admission to the
   

   respondent school, the respondent school declined to admit the
   petitioner resulting in the petitioner being compelled to approach
   this Court by means of the present writ petition seeking a mandamus
   to the respondent school in accordance with outcome of the
   computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE.

2. However, there was neither any order of provisional
   admission passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner nor was
   any seat in Class I reserved in her favour on the basis of the
   computerized draw of lots conducted by the DoE.

3. In such a case, this Court has already held in para 15 of its
   judgment dated 22 April 2024 in Ankit Kumar v. GNCTD2 that it is
   not possible to issue a mandamus to the respondent school to
   accommodate the petitioner in Class II in the year 2024-2025. The
   benefit of the result of the computerized draw of lots conducted by
   the DoE, though in favour of the petitioner, would enure in her
   favour only till the end of 2023-2024, inasmuch as the computerized
   draw of lots was conducted for that year. The seat in Class I for
   2023-2024, which remained unfilled, would be included in the carry
   forward seats for 2024-2025 and would be available for being filled
   by any EWS candidate in 2024-2025, including the petitioner,
   should she choose to apply. The petitioner would, therefore, have to
   compete with all other EWS candidates for the said seats.

4. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to grant the relief
   sought in this writ petition.

5. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this shall not
   

   preclude the petitioner from applying with the DoE as an EWS
   candidate for admission to Class II for the year 2024-2025 and
   including, in her application, to the respondent school. In case such
   an application is made, it shall be furnished and decided by the DoE
   as per the procedure established in that regard."

6. The Impugned Judgment has observed that in absence of any order of
   provisional admission or reservation of the seat in Class I in favour of the
   ward of the Appellant, it was not possible to accommodate the ward of the
   Appellant in Class II in the Academic Year 2024-2025 as held in Ankit
   Kumar (supra). It was further held that the EWS seats in Class I for the
   Academic Year 2023-2024, which remained unfilled, would be included in
   the carry forward seats for the Academic Year 2024-2025 for Class I and
   would be available to any EWS candidate, including the ward of the
   Appellant, if she chooses to apply. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was
   dismissed on the ground that it was not possible to grant the relief sought in
   the Writ Petition as the same was restricted to Academic Year 2023-2024,
   which was over by the time the Writ Petition was decided.

1. It is this part of the Impugned Judgment that is under challenge in this
   Appeal. It is the case of the Appellant that the ward of the Appellant ought
   to have been given admission in Respondent No. 1 - School in Class II for
   the Academic Year 2024-2025 by moulding the relief sought in the Writ
   Petition.

2. When the present Appeal was taken up for hearing on 09.12.2025,
   Respondent No. 2 - DoE was directed to file an additional affidavit stating
   its case. In terms of the said direction, the additional affidavit has been filed
   on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 - DoE, which is directed to be taken on
   record.

3. As per the additional affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 - DoE, the
   ward of the Appellant had been allotted Spring Field Public School,
   Pitampura, Delhi which was one of the preferred Schools chosen by the

                      Appellant in the application form for the admission in Class I under EWS /
                     DG category for Academic Year 2023-2024 and despite having been given
                     admission on 01.07.2023, the ward of the Appellant did not report to the
                     said School.
   

4. During the course of the hearing, the learned Counsel for Respondent
   No. 2 - DoE submitted that DoE is willing to give admission to the
   Appellant's ward in any Municipal School, if the Appellant is willing to take
   the admission.

5. However, learned Counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, declined
   the proposal and stated that the Appellant is unwilling to accept admission at
   any institution other than Respondent No. 1 - School since the Appellant's
   ward was denied admission despite there being no fault of the Appellant,
   thereby entitling the Appellant to admission regardless of the fact that the
   relevant Academic Year for which admission was granted had concluded.
   Additionally, it was argued that due to the pendency of both the Writ
   Petition and the present Appeal, the Appellant should be granted admission
   to a higher class at Respondent No. 1 - School.

6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the decision in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 17 SCC 465,
   which holds as under:

"13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a
meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in
MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault
of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to
see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no
fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:

13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has
approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and

that the question is with respect to the admission in medical
course all the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to
dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the
earliest.

13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds
that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the
candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without
any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities
and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as
well as related principles in the process of grant of admission
which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment
to the competing candidates and if the time schedule
prescribed -- 30th September, is over, to do the complete
justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in
rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by
directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more
than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered
within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th
September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances, the
Court shall order any admission in the same year beyond 30th
October. However, it is observed that such relief can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of
rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also
pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate
who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the
admission would have been given to a more meritorious
candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not
have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper,
however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student
whose admission is sought to be cancelled.

13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of
admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very
academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the
authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and
regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the
students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and
such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest
and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and
direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the
next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by

directing to increase in the number of seats as may be
considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an
eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault
and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious
candidate , in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the
number of seats in the management quota of that year,
meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied
admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic
year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.

13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional
remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies.
Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the
compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no fault
of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not
be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.

13.5. It is clarified that the aforesaid directions pertain to
admission in MBBS course only and we have not dealt with
postgraduate medical course."

1. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant
   as well as the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 - DoE, we are of the
   opinion that no interference is required with the Impugned Judgment for the
   reason that the Appellant was allotted an alternate School by Respondent
   No. 2 - DoE on 01.07.2023 itself, which was one of the preferred schools
   chosen by the Appellant in her application form. Further, the said school
   was at the same distance from the residence of the Appellant as Respondent
   No. 1 - School. Despite being accommodated in one of the preferred
   Schools chosen by the Appellant on 01.07.2023, the Appellant did not report
   to the said School and filed the Writ Petition on 07.10.2023. The Appellant
   has relied upon the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
   Education Act, 2009 (" RTE Act ") for seeking the admission in Respondent
   No. 1 - School.

2. There is no cavil that the RTE Act is a beneficial legislation with an
   objective to achieve social inclusion and to ensure that School becomes a
   common space for children's education not differentiated by barriers of
   caste, ethnic group, or caste lines. However, such a right to education cannot
   be translated into right to select a particular school.

3. In the facts of the present case, upon failure by Respondent No. 1 -
   School to grant admission, Respondent No. 2 - DoE accommodated the
   ward of the Appellant in another School, which was amongst the preferred
   schools selected by the Appellant at the time of filing up the application
   form. Although the Appellant was informed that the ward of the Appellant
   was granted a seat in Respondent No. 1 - School through draw of lots, when
   Respondent No. 1 - School did not grant admission, the Appellant was
   given admission in another school in the interest of the education of the
   ward of the Appellant. However, the Appellant did not accept the admission
   in Spring Field Public School, Pitampura, Delhi, despite the same being one
   of the schools selected as preferred school by the Appellant herself and
   instead filed the Writ Petition specifically seeking admission for Class I in
   Academic Year 2023-2024.

4. By the time the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 08.05.2024, the
   relief sought in the Writ Petition could not have been granted due to efflux
   of time. In absence of any provisional admission or reserving the seat during
   the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Court had no power to create an
   additional seat for a particular Academic Year.

5. In Ankit Kumar (supra), this Court has observed as under:

"6. I may note, here, that students who approached the Court
seeking admission on the basis of an allotment made by the DoE

consequent on the computerised draw of lots fall into three
categories.

1.  The first two categories relate to students who approach the
   

   Court during the academic year in respect of which the allotment is
   in their favour. Of these students, one category of students would be
   those in whose favour the court passes an interim order of
   provisional admission. The second category of students would be
   those in favour of whom there is no order of provisional admission,
   but the court passes an order reserving a seat for the student
   concerned in the class in respect of which the allotment has been
   made by the DoE.

2. In both these cases, even if the writ petition is taken up after
   the academic year is over, it is possible for the Court to direct
   admission of the student in the next academic year.

---

1. If the Court passes an interim order directing provisional admission of the student in accordance with the result of the DoE allotment, there is no difficulty, as the student would, during the pendency of the writ petition, also be entitled to progressive promotion to higher classes, of course subject to the outcome of the writ petition. If, therefore, the Court finds the denial of admission to the student by the school to be legally unsustainable, it can allow the writ petition by finally directing admission of the student in the class in which the student is studying, in School X, at that point of time, thereby making the interim order absolute.

---

1. If, however, there is neither any interim order of provisional admission or directing reserving of a seat for the petitioner passed by the Court, then, after the academic year is over, the right of the student to be granted admission to the school would perish with the coming to an end of the 2023-2024 academic year. The petitioner would not have any seat allotted by the DoE in her favour in Class I in the school for 2024-2025. Further the unfilled seats in Kg/Pre- primary in 2023- 2024, even if carried forward, would then be available for all EWS students who seek admission in class I for the academic year 2024- 2025, as no seat has been reserved for the

petitioner under any interim order of the Court. It would be unfair,
therefore, to deny such EWS applicants for the 2024-2025 academic
year one seat merely because there was an allotment in KG/Pre-
primary in 2023-2024 in favour of the petitioner which did not
fructify. That seat, even if carried forward, would be available for
being filled by all EWS students who would have to apply and
compete in the computerised draw of lots held by the DoE."
25. In view of the above, in the cases where there is no interim order of
provisional admission or direction of reserving of a seat passed by the Court
during the pendency of the petition, the right of the student to be granted
admission in the school allotted by the DoE would perish after the Academic
Year is over.

1. In the present case, there was neither any interim order of provisional
   admission nor direction for reserving a seat in favour of the Appellant. Once
   the Academic Year 2023-2024 was over, the right of the Appellant to seek
   admission in Respondent No. 1 - School stood extinguished as the relief
   sought in the Writ Petition was specific for grant of admission for Academic
   Year 2023-2024.

2. The reliance placed by the Appellant upon the decision in S. Krishna
   Sradha (supra) is misplaced as the same involved admission in the MBBS
   course and considering the exceptional circumstances and to do complete
   justice, the Supreme Court granted admission by increasing the seats in the
   same year and provided that any direction for increasing the seat can only be
   in the same Academic Year and that too be passed within one month from
   the cut-off date. The facts of the present case are different as the Academic
   Year was over by the time the Writ Petition came up for final hearing.
   Hence, the Court had no ability to grant admission as the Academic Year
   was already over by then. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the

                      Impugned Judgment. Consequently, the present Appeal along with the
                     pending Applications stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
   

TEJAS KARIA, J

                                                     DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
                      MARCH 25, 2026
                      ap