Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the right to seek admission in the respondent school stood extinguished. (AI image)The Delhi High Court has clarified that while the right to education is a statutory guarantee under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, it does not extend to a right to insist on admission in a particular private school, especially once the academic session for which admission was sought has already concluded.Dismissing an appeal brought by a parent for admission of her child in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Tejas Karia ruled that the right to claim admission cannot be held in abeyance indefinitely in the absence of interim relief, and must lapse at the end of the academic year involved.Background of the DisputeThe case arose from admission to Class I under the EWS quota for the academic session 2023–2024. The appellant, as the natural guardian of her minor son, applied for admission in a private unaided school under the EWS category. The child was successfully selected through the computerized draw of lots conducted by the Directorate of Education (DoE), which ordinarily confers a right to admission in the allotted institution.However, when the appellant approached the school to complete the admission formalities, she was denied admission. The school informed her that the process would be considered only after general category admissions were completed. Despite multiple representations and follow-ups, the admission was not granted. Aggrieved by this denial, the appellant approached the High Court seeking a direction to the school to honour the allotment and admit her child.Proceedings Before the Single JudgeDuring the pendency of the writ petition, the Directorate of Education indicated that there were available vacancies in the school. However, the school disputed the number of EWS seats and submitted that the intake had been reduced based on prior representations made to the authorities.The Single Judge noted that the denial of admission did not appear to have a clear or justifiable basis. However, by the time the matter was adjudicated, the academic year 2023–2024 had already come to an end.Therefore, relying on the settled legal principles, the Court held that the benefit of selection through the draw of lots is intrinsically linked to the academic year for which it is conducted. Once that academic session concludes, the claim for admission cannot ordinarily be carried forward.Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.Appellant’s Case Before the Division BenchChallenging this decision, the appellant argued that she had approached the Court well within the academic year and should not be made to suffer due to delays in judicial adjudication.It was argued that the Court ought to have molded the relief in such a manner as to secure admission for the child in the subsequent academic session, particularly when the denial of admission was not attributable to any fault on the part of the appellant.The appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh to argue that courts possess the power to grant admission even after the closure of the academic year in exceptional circumstances to ensure complete justice.It was further submitted that denying admission altogether would defeat the very purpose of the EWS scheme under the RTE Act, which is intended to provide meaningful access to quality education for disadvantaged children.Stand of the AuthoritiesThe Directorate of Education, on the other hand, pointed out that the appellant’s child had already been allotted an alternative school, one of the preferred choices indicated in the application form. It was submitted that admission in the said school had been offered, but the appellant chose not to avail the same, insisting instead on admission only in the originally allotted institution.The authorities argued that once a viable alternative had been provided within the framework of the EWS admission system, the statutory obligation stood fulfilled.The High Court then began emphasizing the scope and limits of the right to education under the statutory framework.In a crucial observation, the Court held:“Such a right to education cannot be translated into right to select a particular school.”The Bench clarified that the scheme of admissions under the RTE Act does not confer an enforceable right to insist upon a specific institution of choice. The mechanism of draw of lots is designed to ensure equitable distribution of seats, not to guarantee admission in a particular school.The Court also took note of the fact that the child had been offered admission in another school, which was among the preferences indicated by the appellant herself.In this context, the Court observed that once the State has discharged its obligation by facilitating admission in a recognized school under the EWS quota, the parent cannot insist on a particular institution as a matter of right.A significant aspect of the judgment also related to the effect of lapse of the academic year.The Court reiterated the settled principle that unless interim protection is granted during the pendency of proceedings, claims relating to admission cannot survive beyond the academic session.Referring to its earlier precedents, the Bench observed:“If there is neither any interim order of provisional admission or directing reserving of a seat… the right of the student… would perish with the coming to an end of the academic year.”The Court explained that permitting such claims to be revived in subsequent academic sessions would disrupt the admission process and prejudice other eligible candidates.It further cautioned that:“Allowing such reliefs beyond the academic year would unsettle the entire admission framework and adversely impact other EWS candidates awaiting admission.”The appellant’s reliance on S. Krishna Sradha was specifically addressed and rejected by the Court. The Bench clarified that the said judgment was rendered in the context of medical admissions, where exceptional circumstances warranted judicial intervention even after the academic year had progressed. However, the Court held that such principles cannot be applied mechanically to school admissions under the RTE framework.In this regard, the Court observed that:“The reliance on S. Krishna Sradha is misplaced, as the said decision was rendered in a distinct factual and statutory context.”The Court highlighted that the admission process to schools, especially in the EWS category, is a closed and time-limited process.Equality vs Systemic OrderWhile acknowledging that the appellant may have faced hardship, the Court emphasized that equitable considerations cannot override systemic discipline in the admission process.The Bench noted that:“Judicial intervention cannot be extended to the extent of rewriting admission cycles or creating rights where none exist in law.”The Court highlighted that granting admission in a subsequent academic year would effectively confer an unfair advantage over other similarly placed candidates who would be competing for limited seats.Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that the right to seek admission in the respondent school stood extinguished with the lapse of the academic year and could not be enforced in a subsequent session, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.LPA 810/2024, CM APPL. 48040/2024, CM APPL. 48041/2024 & CM APPL. 66934/2025 POOJA AS GUARDIAN OF BABY DEVANSHI JAISAWAR vs AADHARSHILA VIDYAPEETH & ANR.For the Appellant: Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Mr. Vipul Singh, Advocates.For the Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv for R-1. Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, PC, GNCTD with Ms. Chandrika Sachdeva and Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advocates for R-2.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)