2016 (8) TMI 1581 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking placing of applicant under Weaker Section (EWS)/Disadvantaged Group (DG) Category by granting age relaxation - petitioner-school submitted that MACT did not have the jurisdiction either to direct the petitioner-school to admit Master Priyanshu or to create seats qua EWS quota more than twentyfive per cent of the general category seats - HELD THAT - This Court finds that admittedly the total number of students in Grade1 in the petitioner-school are thirty-four whereas the number of students admitted in the EWS category are only seven - the obligation under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act 2009 is to admit in Class 1 to the extent of at least twenty-five percent of the strength of that class students from EWS category. Consequently there is no bar on a private unaided school from admitting more than twenty-five per cent students in EWS category provided the appropriate government agrees to pay for such extra seats under Section 12(2) of the RTE Act 2009 - which the respondent no.2-DOE is willing to do in the present case. According to reports filed by the Field Officer and co-counsel for respondent no.2-DOE Master Priyanshu speaks conversational Hindi and can understand and answer all questions in Hindi. He can also count in Hindi from numeral 1 till numeral 30 and he remembers the English alphabets A to Z. According to respondent no.2-DOE s Field Officer the child will pick up education quite quickly if he is admitted in Class 1 - Since the petitioner-school did not grant Master Priyanshu admission as an interim measure he was admitted in Class 1 in a local municipal school. Master Priyanshu informed the Field Officer and co-counsel for respondent no.2-DOE that he enjoys attending classes in Grade 1 and is comfortable with his fellow students and what is being taught. This Court is of the view that as Master Priyanshu has not had any prior formal education Class 1 which is the first class for formal education is the ideal class for him to begin his education. This view is also in consonance with the reports filed by the Field Officer and co-counsel for the respondent no.2-DOE - It is settled law that this Court has extremely broad jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and under the said Article it can pass whatever orders are necessary for doing equity and justice. The Supreme Court in N S Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra 1966 (3) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT has held that unlike a inferior court in respect of a High Court which is also a Court of Record it is assumed that every action is within its jurisdiction unless expressly shown otherwise. Though this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders have been passed by the President 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 - This Court places on record its appreciation for the empathy and sensitivity displayed by the Presiding Officer MACT as well as officials of Directorate of Education and both the learned counsel for respondent No.2- DOE as well as the learned Amicus Curiae.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of MACT to direct school admissions.
2. Compliance with EWS/DG quota requirements.
3. Age discrepancy and appropriate class placement.
4. Provision of special facilities for disabled students.
5. Distance and transportation issues.
6. Violation of natural justice principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of MACT to Direct School Admissions:
The petitioner-school challenged the orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) directing the school to admit a child under the EWS/DG category. The school argued that MACT lacked jurisdiction to issue such directives. The court acknowledged that MACT did not have the authority to direct school admissions and that the orders were passed without giving the school an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. However, the court adopted the impugned orders under its Article 226 jurisdiction to ensure justice for the victim.

2. Compliance with EWS/DG Quota Requirements:
The school contended that it had no vacant seats under the EWS quota. The court found that the total number of students in Grade 1 was thirty-four, with only seven EWS category students, indicating a vacancy. The court clarified that EWS seats should be calculated based on the total strength of the class, not just the general category seats. Thus, there was a vacancy for at least one EWS/DG seat, which could be allocated to the child.

3. Age Discrepancy and Appropriate Class Placement:
The school argued that the child had multiple documents showing different birth dates and should be admitted to a class appropriate to his age. The court noted that discrepancies in the child's date of birth were due to poverty and ignorance. The court emphasized that under the RTE Act, no child should be denied admission for lack of age proof and that children should be admitted to a class appropriate to their age. Given the child's lack of prior formal education, Class 1 was deemed appropriate.

4. Provision of Special Facilities for Disabled Students:
The school argued that it could not be compelled to deploy special educators or provide a barrier-free environment. The court rejected this argument, citing Section 26(a) of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, which mandates free education in an appropriate environment for disabled children. The court referenced a previous judgment stating that schools must be prepared to accommodate special needs students, including deploying special educators and providing necessary facilities.

5. Distance and Transportation Issues:
The school claimed it had no provision for transport from the child's residence, which was in a different state. The court found that the child's residence was within 2.34 kilometers of the school, as confirmed by a field officer and co-counsel. The court noted that the school was within the prescribed distance for EWS/DG admissions, making the child eligible for admission.

6. Violation of Natural Justice Principles:
The school argued that it was not heard before the MACT issued its orders, violating natural justice principles. The court acknowledged this but stated that since the orders were now being passed by a Constitutional Court after an elaborate hearing, the grievance did not survive. The court emphasized its broad jurisdiction under Article 226 to pass orders necessary for justice.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the MACT's orders due to lack of jurisdiction but directed the school to admit the child in Class 1 under its Article 226 jurisdiction. The court highlighted the need to rehabilitate the accident victim and ensure his right to education, appreciating the empathy and sensitivity shown by the MACT, Directorate of Education officials, and counsels involved. The judgment underscored that the purpose of law is to achieve justice, especially for vulnerable individuals like the child in question.