AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
CM No. 1553/2007
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP (C) 895/2007 & CM. No. 1552/2007
Rule.
With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for disposal.
The petitioner (Kriti Sisodia) has filed this petition through her guardian/father Shri Anil Kumar Sisodia seeking admission to the lower KG class
of in Mont fort Senior Secondary School (Respondent No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as the Mont fort School). The contention raised on behalf of
the petitioner is that the petitioner was denied admission to the school by employing its own criteria of admission and not following the
recommendation of the Ganguly Committee. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this would be in clear violation of the
directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA 196/2004 which stipulated that, for the academic session 2007-2008, admissions in
schools would be governed by the recommendations of the Ganguly Committee. A copy of the order dated 17.10.2006 passed in LPA 196/2004
is placed on record as annexure P-1. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.10.2006 reads as under:
Counsel appearing for the various parties pray for some time to go through the report. We make it clear that as an experimental basis we would
like the recommendations of the Committee to be given a trial for the next year nursery admission. If there are other suggestions they may also be
given to the Court.
The above order was followed by an order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench in the same LPA 196/2004. The relevant portion of
the order dated 8.12.2006 reads as under:
...In our opinion, it will be appropriate that for nursery admissions for the coming academic year, the guidelines which were framed by the
Committee could be given a trial, on an experimental basis. We make it clear that this is only a stop gap arrangement, made to tide over the
present situation which remains fluid, till all the parties concerned address the Court on the recommendations given by the Committee, by filing their
suggestions....
According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, these two orders passed by the Division Bench in LPA 196/2004 make
it abundantly clear that the Ganguly Committee Recommendations have to be applied to nursery/lower KG admissions by schools in Delhi.
Continuing with his submissions, the learned Counsel pointed out that, as per the Ganguly Committee Recommendations, weightage is to be given
for 7 different categories. The categories being (1) neighborhood Schools; (2) sibling categories; (3) alumni category; (4) Children with special
needs; (5) Girl child;
(6) Educational qualifications of parents and (7) School specific criteria. As per the recommendations of the Committee, it is apparent that the
Committee had decided to device a method and assigned criteria by which each applicant can be assessed on a scale by giving weightage points
under the different heads/categories referred to above. It was felt by the Ganguly Committee that since weightage points would be clearly
indicated, the applicant could himself/herself do the marking and count the total before handing the form to the school. The school could then
display the entire list along with cut off points in a descending order of the weightage points. Parents would, according to the Committee, find the
exercise completely transparent inasmuch as those who secured admission would know how they have got it and those who were not able to get
admission would also know the reasons for the same. On the basis of these recommendations a suggested form, indicating the weightage for each
category, was given by the Committee. The same reads as under:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Sl. Criteria Specifications Range of Points Put a tick( ) mark at
No. the appropriate place
__________________________________________________________________________________
neighborhood 0-3 km
Above 3 and below 5 km
Above 5 and below 8 km
Above 8 and below 10 km
Above 10 km
20
16
12
08
No weightage
Sibling 20
Alumni
Father 05
Mother 05
Any child with Child with special
special needs needs who can be
mainstreamed under
inclusive education
05 Mother/Father
Education Qualifications:
Post-graduation Graduation Sr. Secondary Class X
which includes
professional
qualifications
10 08 06 04 10 08 06 04
Girl Child 05
Any other parameters
which the school may
like to fix as per their
needs/requirements 20
Total Points:
__________________________________________________________________________________
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Mont fort School, instead of applying the aforesaid criteria of weightage, applied its own
criteria for admission and did not follow the Ganguly recommendations as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. He points out that the
criteria followed by the Mont fort school and the relative weightage given to each category is given in annexure P3 at page 21, the relative portion
reads as under:
The criteria for short listing students from among 2200 and more candidates for possible admission is scheduled here below :
Once they are short listed individual will be given time to produce original documents and credentials to ensure that the points allotted to each is in
order before arriving at a final decision.
Proximity :- First k.m. from the school gates -20 points
Second k.m. - 15 points
Third k.m. - 10 points
Fourth k.m. - 7 points
Fifth and above - 5 points.
Parent education
Postgraduate/or above/Professionals Degree- - 7.5+7.5
Graduates - 6 + 6
Below Graduation - 5 + 5
Other heads are self explanatory.
Sibling - 20
Father - Alumni - 05
Mother - Alumni - 05
Backward classes / Weaker Section - 05
Police, Paramilitary, defense, etc. - 05
Single parent - 05
Physically challenged - 05
Student from Mont fort,Shalimar Bagh - 10
Girl child - 05.
Total - 100 points
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the points of difference between the criteria adopted by Mont fort school and those
recommended by the Ganguly Committee, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, are only two and these two pertain to the neighborhood /
proximity criterion and the education qualification/parents education criterion. With regard to the neighborhood criterion, 20 points are awarded
under the Ganguly Committee Recommendations if the applicant resides within 3 km radius from the school whereas the criterion prescribed by the
school is more stringent and it provides 20 points for the applicant residing within 1 km radius of the school gate. Therefore, according to the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, a different criterion is prescribed by the school to that recommended by the Ganguly Committee and this would
be a violation of the directions passed by the Division Bench. He submits that the applicant does not reside within 1 km radius of the school, but
the applicant resides within 3 km of the school. If the Ganguly Committee recommendation was taken into account then the applicant would have
got full 20 points whereas going by the school recommendation, she got only 10 points. It may be clarified that the exact distance at which the
applicant resides from the school is also in dispute as the learned Counsel for the school submitted that, in point of fact, the applicant resides
between 4 and 5 km from the school and, Therefore, she would only have been entitled to 7 points.
The second point of difference pertains to the category- ""education qualification/parents education"". The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that while the Ganguly Committee recommended ten points for each parent with postgraduate and professional qualification the school
has prescribed only 7.5 points for each parent under the same category. In respect of graduates, the Ganguly Committee recommendation is of 8
points for each parent whereas the school has recommended 6 points for each parent and so on. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for
the petitioner, a lower weightage was being granted by the school for education qualification than that recommended by the Ganguly committee. It
is the case of the petitioner that had the Ganguly Committee been adopted in toto then the petitioner would have achieved 50 points. The cut-off
point specified by the school is 40.5 and, Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would have been eligible for
admission to the Lower KG class. The learned Counsel for the respondent however, controverter the factum of the petitioner attaining 50 points
even as per the Ganguly Committee. According to him, the petitioner would, even if the Ganguly committee is followed strictly, be entitled to 40
points.
The main controversy in the present petition is whether the Ganguly Committee recommendations are to be followed or not by the respondent
No. 2 (Mont fort School). It is the contention of the petitioner that the school must follow the Ganguly Committee Recommendations in view of the
explicit directions given by the Division Bench in LPA 196/2004. He submits that Mont fort school is also a party in those proceedings. The
learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 (Mont fort School), however, submits that even as per the Ganguly Committee Recommendations, the
school is excluded from the aforesaid criteria of admission. He made pointed references to paragraphs 4.7 and 5.8 which read as under:
4.7. School Specific Criteria.
The framework for admission process should have an inbuilt mechanism for flexibility to enable each school to adapt it according to its context and
local requirements. Without such a provision the admission procedure may end up as a strait jacket, becoming self-defeating and counter
productive. Schools, as responsible partners with parents over an extended period of 12-14 years, should have the freedom to specify their own
philosophy, value systems, specific needs and then decide on certain parameters for admission. However schools have to fix such parameters and
declare them on their website and notice Board and print them in their prospectus and registration from. It will enable parents to fill in the relevant
details in the registration forms under this category besides making the process completely transparent. This will also help the parents to make an
appropriate choice of school for their children. It would be advisable for schools to identify one or more criteria under this section and demarcate
weightage for each. An illustrative list of examples has been provided in the section dealing with `admission procedure''. Schools may add to this
list or change the criteria according to their needs and requirement. They may also allocate weightage for children of underprivileged section, as
mentioned in the preceding section.
There is a wide variety of schools set up in Delhi, each with its own specific characteristics, obligations and client groups. Thus some schools cater
to those from the armed forces and have the mandate to provide admission to that category of children. It will not be fair to make these school
change their admission priorities completely since they have specific obligations. These schools can give all the weightage under school specific
criteria to children of parents who they have been mandated to serve in the first place. So in the case of this category of schools the weightage
need not be further broken down under more than one parameter as has been recommended for other schools.
There are also schools established and run by religious or linguistic minorities under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The freedom to administer
and, in this instance, to admit children of the minority to the school, remains safeguarded.
5.8 Special Category Schools
There are schools that are catering mainly to the educational needs of the children of armed forces and paramilitary forces. Such schools will follow
the policy norms criteria laid down for admission of the children of the personnel whom they are serving now. For the remaining general category,
they will follow the above-mentioned point system. For minority schools established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, the freedom to
administer and admit children remains safeguarded.
With particular reference to the last sentence of paragraph 5.8 quoted above, the learned Counsel for the respondent No2 (school) submitted that
minority schools established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution have been given freedom to administer and admit children as the Ganguly
Committee recommendations also state that their rights remain safeguarded.
Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, the only issue that needs to be decided in the present case is whether the
criteria specified in the Ganguly Committee recommendations for giving weightage to the various categories has to be followed by Mont fort
School or not. In view of the directions of the Division Bench in LPA 196/2004, the schools are required to follow the same for the academic year
2007 on an experimental basis. But, does this extend to minority schools. The rights of minority institutions are governed by Articles 29 and 30 of
the Constitution which read as under:
Protection of Interests of minorities. - (1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct
language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same.
(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. - (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the
right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
1[(A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a
minority, referred to in Clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property
is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.]
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the
management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.
There is no dispute that the respondent No. 2 is an unaided minority Institution. And, insofar as unaided minority institutions are concerned, the
Supreme Court, in a recent decision in the case of P.A. Inamdar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, held as under:
So far as the minority unaided institutions are concerned to admit students being one of the components of ""the right to establish and
administer an institution"", the State cannot interfere therewith. Up to the level of undergraduate education, the minority unaided educational
institutions enjoy total freedom.
In the same judgment it is also observed as under:
Pai Foundation is unanimous on the view that the right to establish and administer an institution, the phrase as employed in Article 30(1) of the
Constitution, comprises of the following rights : (a) to admit students; (b) to set up a reasonable fee structure; (c) to constitute a governing body;
(d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and (e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of the employees. (Para 50)
A minority educational institution may choose not to take any aid from the State and may also not seek any recognition or affiliation. It may be
imparting such instructions and may have students learning such knowledge that do not stand in need of any recognition. Such institutions would be
those where instructions are imparted for the sake of instructions and learning is only for the sake of learning and acquiring knowledge. Obviously,
such institutions would fall in the category of those who would exercise their right under the protection and privilege conferred by Article 30(1) ""to
their hearts'' content"" unhampered by any restrictions excepting those which are in national interest based on considerations such as public safety,
national security and national integrity or are aimed at preventing exploitation of students or the teaching community. Such institutions cannot
indulge in any activity which is vocative of any law of the land.
They are free to admit all students of their own minority community if they so choose to do. (para 145, Pai Foundation2)
The position in law is, Therefore, absolutely clear that the unaided minority institutions have the complete freedom insofar as the procedure to
be adopted for admissions are concerned. This is, of course, subject to the larger interest of public safety, national security and national integrity
which have been referred to in the Supreme Court decision above. It is, Therefore, clear that the Ganguly Committee was alive to the situation and
specifically provided in paragraph 5.8 that the rights of minority schools established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to have the freedom to
administer and admit children remain safeguarded. The Committee, Therefore, consciously, in view of the Constitutional mandate, did not interfere
with the admission procedure to be adopted by such schools.
A submission was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the exception granted to such a minority school was only with respect to
and limited to category No. 7, that is, with respect to School Specific Criteria and was, consequently, limited only to 20 points. Therefore,
according to him, as in the case of the schools for children of persons belonging to the armed forces, the school could give full 20 points for such
persons under this category, minority schools could, at best, give 20 points under this category to the applicants from the minority community.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this is what is meant by the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 4.7 of the recommendations also.
I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A reading of paragraph 4.7 makes it clear that while schools which cater to those
from the armed forces have been given liberty to give full weightage for children of parents serving in the armed forces. Under the school specific
criteria, insofar as the minority schools are concerned, their rights have been clearly safeguarded not only with regard to admitting children of the
minority community but also other children in general. This is further buttressed by the contents of 5.8 which are quite explicit. And, in any event,
this is the law as declared by the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra). Unaided minority schools are, Therefore, not covered by the Ganguly
Committee Recommendations. In these circumstances, the writ petition must fail. There shall be no order as to costs.