Right to school admission perishes post-academic year absent interim provisional admission or seat reservation orders.

The Appellant applied for her ward’s admission to Class I under the EWS/DG/CWSN category for the Academic Year 2023-2024

Despite being selected for Respondent No. 1 – School through a draw of lots conducted by the Directorate of Education (DoE) on 14.03.2023, admission was denied on the grounds that general category seats were unfilled

The Appellant filed a Writ Petition on 07.10.2023

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the DoE had reduced the allotted EWS seats after the draw of lots and that the Appellant had been offered admission to another preferred school (Spring Field Public School) on 01.07.2023, which she refused

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on 08.05.2024, holding that since the academic year had expired and no interim order for provisional admission or seat reservation was passed, a mandamus for admission in the subsequent year (Class II) could not be issued

The Appellant challenged this dismissal via the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether a student denied admission in a specific academic year can claim a right to admission in a higher class in the subsequent academic year if no interim protection was granted during the pendency of the litigation.

2. Whether the right to education under the RTE Act includes the right to choose a specific school when alternate comparable options are provided.

3. Whether the principles for molding relief in medical admissions (MBBS) as per S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh are applicable to school admissions under the RTE Act after the expiry of the academic year.

Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates free and compulsory education for children from weaker sections

Precedent set in Ankit Kumar v. GNCTD (2024:DHC:3161), which established that the right to admission in a school allotted by the DoE perishes upon the conclusion of the relevant academic year unless a provisional admission or seat reservation order was obtained

Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465, noting it applies to medical courses under "rarest of rare" circumstances and requires strict adherence to cut-off dates

RTE Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at social inclusion, it does not confer a right to select a specific school

The Court reasoned that the Appellant’s right to admission for the 2023-2024 session extinguished upon the expiry of that academic year

It categorized litigants seeking EWS admissions into those with interim provisional admission, those with reserved seats, and those with no interim protection; the Appellant fell into the third category, where rights "perish" with the end of the term

The Court emphasized that the Appellant was not deprived of education by the state, as the DoE had accommodated her ward in an alternate preferred school of her own choosing, which was situated at a similar distance from her residence

By refusing this alternate seat and failing to secure interim orders in the Writ Petition, the Appellant could not later seek to "mold the relief" to force Respondent No. 1 to create a seat in Class II for 2024-2025

The Court held that forcing such an admission would be unfair to the new pool of EWS candidates competing for carry-forward seats in the subsequent year

The Court found no infirmity in the Impugned Judgment and ruled that the Appellant was not entitled to a mandatory seat in Respondent No. 1 – School for the subsequent year, especially since she had rejected a valid alternate placement offered by the DoE

All pending applications were also dismissed without costs