Advantage not to be taken of minority educational institution certificate obtained after committing default in complying with the directives which were already issued much prior to the date of such certificate : Bombay High Court

 on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM1 942 WP 624 OF 2021.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 624 OF 2021 Ashish Patel)Father of Master Rasesh Patel )Shiv Tapi B Wing 3 33 HG Road )Gamdevi Mumbai 400 007)….. PetitionerVERSUS1. Edubridge International School)Wadilal A Patel Marg )Grant Road East Mumbai 400 007)(through the Principal))2. Chankya Gyan Kendra )301 B Wing Poonam Chambers )Shiv Sagar Estate Dr.Annie Besant Road)Worli Mumbai 400 018)(thro’ the Chairman))3. The State of Maharashtra )through Deputy Director of Education)Mumbai Region having office at)Jawahar Bal Bhavan )Netaji Subhash Road Charni Road )Mumbai 400 004)4. The Education Inspector )Mumbai South Zone E Vita )Impress Bldg. G.D.Ambekar Road )Parel Village Parel Mumbai 400 012)….. RespondentsMr.C.R.Sadasivan a w. Mr.Anup Dhannawat for the Petitioner.Mr.Pradeep Bakhru a w. Ms.Upasana Vasu i b. M s.Wadia Ghandy &Co. for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2.Mr.Milind More Additional Government Pleader for the State Respondent nos. 3 and 4. on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM2 942 WP 624 OF 2021.docCORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND R.I.CHAGLA JJ. DATE : 5th AUGUST 2021 : Rule. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondent nos. 3and 4. Mr.Bakhru learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2waives service. By consent of parties writ petition is heard finally.2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia the petitioner has prayed for an order and directions against therespondent nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith grant admission to his son MasterRasesh Ashish Patel as per the allotment letter issued to the petitionerby the competent authorities under the Right to Education Act 2009 inStandard I during the academic year 2020 21 or 2021 22.3.The petitioner’s son was issued a certificate of disability ofpersons with autism by Nair Hospital on 16th October 2018. Sometimein the year 2019 he petitioner applied for online admission of his sonunder the Right to Education Act 2009.4.On 10th April 2019 the respondent nos. 3 and 4 issued a letter ofallotment under the provisions of Right to Education Act 2009 on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM3 942 WP 624 OF 2021.docthereby granting admission to the petitioner in the respondent no.1school for the 1st standard English Medium. It was clearly providedthat the applicant was to verify the documents before the committeebetween 11th April 2019 to 26th April 2019. It is the case of thepetitioner that the competent authority vide letter dated 11th April 2019informed the respondent no.1 school directing the said school to grantadmission to the petitioner under the provisions of Right to EducationAct 2009 in the said school after verifying the documents submittedbefore the committee.5.The petitioner made a representation to the Maharashtra StateCommission for Protection of Child Rights. Vide letter dated 14thOctober 2019 the Maharashtra State Commission for Protection ofChild Rights addressed a letter to the Education Inspector inviting hisattention to the provisions of Right to Education Act 2009 anddirecting the local Grievance Settlement Committee for redressal of thecomplaint at the local level.6.The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the EducationDepartment vide letter dated 19th August 2019 informing that thoughthe petitioner had visited the respondent no.1 school in the month ofAugust 2019 the Administrative Officer of the school refused to grant on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM4 942 WP 624 OF 2021.docadmission to the petitioner inspite of the letter of allotment issued bythe authority. The petitioner thus filed this writ petition.7.Mr.Sadasivan learned counsel for the petitioner invited ourattention to various documents annexed to the petition and wouldsubmit that the respondent no.1 had included its name on the portalunder the Right to Education Act 2009 and based on the name havingappeared on the portal the competent authority had directed therespondent no.1 to grant admission to the petitioner under the 25%reservation under the Right to Education Act 2009 as far back as on10th April 2019. He submits that though the petitioner had approachedthe respondent no.1 school no admission was granted to the son of thepetitioner by the respondent no.1.8.It is submitted that the directives issued by the Education Officerto grant admission under the 25% quota under the provisions of Rightto Education Act 2009 is binding on the respondent no.1.9.Mr.Bakhru learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the otherhand would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted inthe respondent no.1 school on the ground that the respondent no.1being a minority unaided educational institution managed by the on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM5 942 WP 624 OF 2021.docrespondent no.2 which is a public charitable trust. He submits that therespondent no.2 had applied to the Government of Maharashtra Minorities Development Department under the provisions of theNational Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act 2004for the status of Minority Educational Institution within the meaning ofsection 2(g) of the said Act. The Government of Maharashtra hasconferred the respondent no.2 with the status of the minorityeducational institution within the meaning of section 2(g) of the saidAct vide certificate dated 17th February 2020. 10.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the provisions of Rightto Education Act 2009 does not apply to the minority educationalinstitution under the provisions of the National Commission forMinority Educational Institutions Act 2004. It is submitted thatthough the State of Maharashtra had granted certificate in favour of therespondent no.2 granting status of minority educational institution on17th February 2020 the said status would relate back to the date ofincorporation of the said institute. In support of this submission learned counsel invited our attention to the paragraphof theaffidavit in reply and would rely upon the authorities cited therein. on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM6 942 WP 624 OF 2021.doc11.A perusal of the record indicates that the respondent no.2 hasbeen granted certificate of ‘minority educational institution’ within themeaning of section 2(g) of the National Commission for MinorityEducational Institutions Act 2004 on 17th February 2020. It is not indispute that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were issued a letter in favour ofthe petitioner for granting admission to the son of the petitioner in therespondent no.1 school much prior to the date of such certificate dated17th February 2020. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 were thus required tocomply with the said directives issued by the competent authoritywithin the time prescribed therein which was much prior to the saiddate of the said certificate issued in favour of the respondent no.2institute under the provisions of National Commission for MinorityEducational Institutions Act 2004. 12.The respondent nos. 1 and 2 having committed default in notcomplying with the directives issued by the Education Departmentbefore the date of obtaining such certificate dated 17th February 2020cannot be allowed to now urge that such certificate having been issuedsubsequently the default already committed by them stood condoned. 13.Upon raising a querry upon the learned counsel for therespondent nos. 1 and 2 whether any other students had been admitted on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM7 942 WP 624 OF 2021.docby the respondent nos. 1 and 2 prior to the date of obtaining suchcertificate dated 17th February 2020 under the provisions of the Rightto Education Act 2009 learned counsel fairly on instructions statesthat four students were admitted prior to 17th February 2020 based onthe directives issued by the Education Department under the provisionsof the Right to Education Act 2009. 14.Upon raising further querry with the learned counsel that if therespondent nos. 1 and 2 would have complied with the directivesissued by the competent authority prior to the date of 17th February 2020 for the academic year 2019 20 as directed by the EducationDepartment whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2 could have cancelledthe admission of the son of the petitioner. learned counsel for therespondent nos. 1 and 2 could not dispute that the respondent nos. 1and 2 could not have cancelled the admission once granted to thepetitioner on the ground of minority status granted subsequently. 15.In our view the respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot be allowed totake advantage of such certificate obtained after committing default incomplying with the directives which were already issued much prior tothe date of such certificate. The disobedience of the directives issuedby the Education Department cannot be condoned by obtaining on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM8 942 WP 624 OF 2021.doccertificate as minority education institution subsequently.16.Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the respondentnos. 1 and 2 that the name of the respondent no.1 was included on theportal by the authority on the premise that the respondent no.2 was notconferred with any such minority status at that point of time isconcerned we are inclined to accept the submission made by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the respondent no.1was included on the portal not by the Education Department but by therespondent no.1 on its own.17.A perusal of the medical certificate annexed by the petitioner atpage 21 indicates that the recommendations made by the Departmentof Psychiatry is that the son of the petitioner should continue in aregular school with various further advise. 18.We accordingly direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to complywith the directives issued by the Education Department on 11th April 2019 annexed at page 25 read with letter dated 10th April 2019 and togrant admission to the son of the petitioner Master Rasesh Ashish Patelin the respondent no.1 school within one week from today on thepetitioner complying with the other legal requisitions if any. on 05 08 2021 on 06 08 KVM9 942 WP 624 OF 2021.doc19.Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 prays for stay ofthe operation of this order. Application for stay is rejected.20.Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule is madeabsolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.21.The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.[R.I.CHAGLA J.] 

Summary: Educational institutions are required to follow the necessary rules and regulations regarding admissions. However these institutions should not skirt around or evade these rules and regulations that were made to protect the general public. This was held in the judgment passed by a two bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. D. DHANUKA AND JUSTICE R.I.CHAGLA, in the matter of Ashish Patel V. Edubridge International School, Chankya Gyan Kendra, dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed for an order and directions against the respondents to forthwith grant admission to his son as per the allotment letter issued to the petitioner by the competent authorities under the Right to Education Act, 2009 in Standard I during the academic year 2020-21 or 2021-22. The petitioner’s son was issued a certificate of disability of persons with autism sometime in the year 2019, the petitioner applied for online admission of his son under the Right to Education Act, 2009. On 10th April, 2019, the respondents issued a letter of allotment under the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009 thereby granting admission to the petitioner in the respondent no.1 school for the 1st standard English Medium. Counsel for the petitioner invited attention to various documents annexed to the petition and submitted that the respondent no.1 had included its name on the portal under the Right to Education Act, 2009 and based on the name having appeared on the portal, the competent authority had directed the respondent no.1 to grant admission to the petitioner under the 25% reservation under the Right to Education Act, 2009 as far back as on 10th April, 2019. He submitted that though the petitioner had approached the respondent no.1 school, no admission was granted to the son of the petitioner by the respondent no.1. Counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted in the respondent no.1 school on the ground that the respondent no.1 being a minority unaided educational institution managed by the respondent no.2 which is a public charitable trust. Counsel submitted that the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009 does not apply to the minority educational institution under the provisions of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. It is submitted that the State of Maharashtra had granted certificate in favour of the respondent no.2 granting status of minority educational institution on 17th February, 2020.