HC stays neighbourhood norm for nursery admission

Calls AAP govt’s notification to private unaided schools on DDA land ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’; major relief for 298 schools

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stayed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government’s nursery admission norm based on the neighbourhood criteria, saying it was “arbitrary and discriminatory” and that “a student’s educational fate cannot be relegated to only his/her position on a map”.

The AAP government’s January 7 notification directed 298 private unaided schools, built on DDA land, to admit 75% students in nursery from the neighbourhood.

Interim arrangement

Stating that the norm only benefits parents who live close to good private schools, Justice Manmohan granted the 298 schools relief to put in place an interim arrangement as he noted that “the admission process has already commenced and irreparable harm would be caused to the petitioners (schools and parents) if the interim stay of the impugned notification is not granted”.

The court had earlier put on hold the effect of this notification with regard to minority schools in Delhi.

All the petitions are now listed for final disposal on March 21.

The court order comes on four petitions moved by Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools, Forum for Promotion of Quality Education For All and two petitions moved by individual parents.

The court, however, did not grant a stay on the term of land allottment letter restricting admission to residents of locality as it was of the prima facie view that “as the schools continue to occupy and operate on allotted lands, they cannot seek interim stay of the terms and conditions stipulated either in the lease deed or allotment letter and that too, a few decades later”.

The court noted that there is no definition of ‘neighbourhood’ or ‘locality’ in either the allotment letter or lease deed on basis of which schools were given land.

“For a few decades either the 'neighbourhood/locality' clause was not insisted upon or the policy of Petitioner-Schools to give preference on the ground of neighbourhood in terms of some extra points was taken as sufficient compliance,” the court said.

The court was also of the view that there was “stark difference between giving a preference on the ground of neighbourhood in terms of some extra points and in making fixed/rigid limits of neighbourhood as the sole criteria for admission”.

“The power to define the concept/criteria of neighbourhood or locality lies with the Delhi Development Authority or land owning agencies on the date it allotted the land. Prima facie the said concepts cannot be defined unilaterally three to four decades later,” said the court.

‘Public interest’

The court also rejected the government’s argument that the decision was taken in larger public interest: “Public interest cannot be confined to children going to the 298 schools on DDA land”.

‘Right to choose’

The court also said that the admission norms based on neighbourhood criteria were “prima facie unconstitutional”.

“The children through their parents have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to be considered for admission in a school of their choice,” the court said.

The court noted that even Article 26(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which India is a signatory, states that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The bench observed that “State cannot impose a restriction on choice of schools just because it thinks it will be more beneficial for the child”.

‘Few good public schools’

The court also reiterated that the primary cause of the nursery admission chaos is lack of adequate number of good quality public schools and uneven distribution of good private unaided schools in Delhi. “Till the quality of all public schools improves, the disparity between demand and supply will remain,” said Justice Manmohan, adding that the impugned notification does not deal with this problem.

While considering government's argument that steps are being taken leading to improvement in quality of government schools, the court said, “a lot more needs to be done before the public schools come at par with good private unaided schools in public perception”.

‘For EWS only’

The court also said that under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, the schools were responsible for admitting students from the neighbourhood only with regard to the 25% seats reserved for the economically weaker section (EWS) and disadvantaged group (DG) categories to address the issue of dropouts of such children if they are made to travel long distances for schooling.

However, the issue of dropouts is not applicable to the general category fee-paying students in private unaided schools, it said.

The bench indicated at potential of abuse of the definition of 'neighbourhood' as “many rich parents would either shift to areas which are close to the school that they want their children to study or would get sham rent receipts/documents from owners or relatives and friends to show that they reside in such areas when they do not”.

“There is no mechanism stipulated in the impugned notification to curb or examine the allegation of abuse,” said the court.

Noting that though the State has power to regulate private educational institutions, the Bench was of the view that the latest notification “completely takes away from the private unaided schools, the right to admit students and the right to lay down a fair, reasonable, transparent and non-exploitative procedure/criteria for admissions, leaving them with no say in their admissions whatsoever”.