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.
LPA 810/2024
4. The present intra court Appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Order dated 08.05.2024 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed in W.P.(C)
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 1 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 2 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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 andSignature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 3 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
reduced the number of EWS seats available in the said school from 4
to 2.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. If that be so, Respondent 1 school may be entitled to the
benefit of the subsequent order of the DoE.
7. 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.
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 4 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Mr. Utkarsh Singh seeks some time to place his stand on
affidavit.
12. 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.
2. 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 inSignature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 5 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to grant the relief
sought in this writ petition.
7. 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.”
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 6 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 7 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 andSignature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 8 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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 bySignature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 9 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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.”
20. 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.
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 10 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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 DoESignature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 11 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
consequent on the computerised draw of lots fall into three
categories.
7. 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.
8. 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.
****** ******* ******
13. 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.
****** ******* ******
15. 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 theSignature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 12 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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.
26. 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.
27. 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
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 13 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
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
Signature Not Verified LPA 810/2024 Page 14 of 14
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.04.2026
15:40:04
