Coming to the aid of a disabled minor boy, Delhi High Court today directed a private school to admit him in Class 1 under the economically weaker section (EWS) category saying he was legally entitled to a seat in the institution.
Justice Manmohan's direction came on a plea by Siddharth International Public School against orders of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) which had directed it to admit the physically disabled boy in class 1 under EWS or disadvantaged group (DG) category, for which 25 per cent seats are to be kept reserved, by giving him age relaxation.
The school had contended that MACT lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order which was issued on a plea by the child's mother.
Agreeing with the school on this point, the court set aside the tribunal's direction, but adopted the order and directed the institute to admit the boy.
The court rejected the school's contention that there were no vacant seats under EWS category by taking note of the submission by Directorate of Education (DoE) that 25 per cent of 34 seats was 8.5 and only seven students had been admitted under EWS.
The school had contended it had 34 students in class 1 of which seven were under EWS and thus, there was no vacant seat in that category.
It had also argued that the child was born in 2006 as per his birth certificate and thus, was overage for Class 1. The boy's mother had contended that he was born in 2010.
On the issue of the child's age, the court said it was not required to pass any order on that and added that in its view, the discrepancy in date of birth of the child was "due to poverty, ignorance and backwardness of his relatives".
It also said that if the school's argument that the boy was too old for class 1, was accepted "then those children who had either not been admitted to a school initially or had left studies midstream would never be able to join/rejoin any school and make use of their fundamental right to free and compulsory education".
In its order, the high court termed as "untenable in law"
the school's argument that it cannot be directed by any court to either deploy special educators or to hold classes for physically challenged children on ground floor or to provide barrier free environment.
It said under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, it was specifically mandated that "every child with a disability has to have access to free education in an appropriate environment"
The judge also said that the boy not only belonged to the disadvantaged group category, but was also a person with disability. In accordance with provisions of Right to Education Act 2009, "he is entitled to free education till he attains the age of 18 years instead of 14 years" as mandated under the Act.
"Consequently, though this court is of the opinion that the impugned orders have been passed by the Presiding Officer, MACT, with intent to do substantial justice and to give the victim of motor accident real succour, yet as they are without jurisdiction, they are set aside.
"However, as (the boy) belongs both to EWS/DG as well as a person with disability category and a seat under EWS/DG category is available in one of the better educational institutions in the immediate neighbourhood, this court in Article 226 jurisdiction and in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009, adopts the impugned orders and disposes of the present writ petition and pending application by directing the petitioner-school to grant admission to him in Class 1," the court said.
The judge was of the view that as the child had not had any prior formal education, Class 1 was the ideal class for him to begin his education.
The court rejected as "ill-founded" the school's contention that admission of child would have disastrous consequences for the general students already studying in class 1.
"On the contrary, (the boy's) admission would make the general students more sensitive and humane as they would appreciate the challenges faced by a student with disability and poverty," it said.
The court made it clear that the directions in the present case were passed "to rehabilitate an accident victim who also belongs to an EWS/DG category. There is nothing to suggest that in present case that justice and law cannot dwell together. After all, one should not forget that the purpose of all law is justice".
