Supreme Court of India
MAJOR SAURABH CHARAN AND OTHERS ETC.versusLT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ETC.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 369
- Decided
- 7 May 2014
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- H L DATTU
Holding
The administration cannot alter admission criteria after the admission process has started, and admissions granted under the earlier notification must stand.
Summary
The appellants, whose children were admitted to private unaided schools in Delhi under a 18‑December‑2013 notification that awarded points for inter‑state transfer, had their admissions threatened when the Delhi Administration issued a 27‑February‑2014 notification deleting the inter‑state transfer points and re‑orienting admission criteria to neighbourhood and sibling criteria. The appellants filed writ petitions and appealed the High Court's interim orders. The Supreme Court examined whether the administration could alter the basis of admission after the process had begun and whether such alteration violated the constitutional obligation to provide elementary education. It held that the administration could not change the criteria mid‑process and that the admissions already granted under the earlier notification must not be disturbed. Consequently, the Court directed that the children retain their seats and that the administration accommodate them, while limiting the relief to those who approached the Court.
Issues considered
- Can the Delhi Administration alter the admission criteria for private unaided schools after the admission process has commenced by deleting the inter‑state transfer points?
- Do the children of parents transferred inter‑state have a right to retain admission granted under the earlier notification?
- Does the deletion of inter‑state transfer points infringe the constitutional right to education?
- Was the High Court's interim order regarding the admission process proper?
Subjects
right to educationschool admissioninter‑state transferadministrative lawprocedural fairnessDelhi schoolsconstitutional obligation
Judgment
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 738
A MAJOR SAURABH CHARAN AND OTHERS ETC.
v.
LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal No.5379-5380 of 2014)
MAY 07, 2014
B
[H.L. DATTU, M.Y. EQBAL AND S.A. BOBOE, JJ.]
~ Schools - Admission - Schools in Delhi - Inter-State
Transfer case - Appellants were transferred to Delhi from
C different States of India - Notification dated 27th February,
2014 issued by Administration, changing the very basis of the
admission granted to the appellants' children, by deleting the
points for Inter State Transfer cases and deciding to
determine eligibility on the basis of Neighborhood Sibling -
D Held: Imparting elementary and basic education is a ·
constitutional obligation on the States as well as societies
running educational institutions - Elders in general and
parents and teachers in particular owe a responsibility for
taking care of the well-being and welfare of the children - On
E facts, it would not be proper for the children whose parents
were transferred to Delhi from different States of India to be
denied admission in the schools much less the non-aided
schools because of the instructions issued by the
Government through its Education Department - It· is
F appropriate to relieve· the appellants from the hardship of
having the admission granted earlier under Notification dated
18th December, 2013 from being taken away by the
subsequent Notification dated 27th February, 2014, issued in
the mid-stream - It was not permissible for the Administration
to alter the basis of admission after the admission process
G had started and further having participated in the selection
process, the criteria for selection could not have been
questioned by unsuccessful participants - In the
circumstances, it is directed the admissions already granted
H 738
MAJ. SAURABH CHARAN v. LT. GOVERNOR, NCT 739
OF DELHI
to the appellants' children shall not be disturbed on the basis A
of impugned Notification dated 27th February, 2014 deleting
points for Inter State Transfer - These children shall continue
their study in those schools where .they got admitted or
selected for admission - Recognised Schools (Admission
Procedure for Pre-Primary Class) Order, 2007. B
On 18th December, 2013, Lt. Governor of NCT of
Delhi made order to amend Recognised Schools
(Admission Procedure for Pre-Primary Class) Order, 2007,
according to which admission to open seats in the
schools were to be made on the basis of fixed parameters C
and points and further clarifying that vacant/unfilled
seat(s), if any, shall be filled by draw of lots. The criteria
for neighbourhood upto 6 kms had 70 points, Sibling
st~ying in school had 20 points, Parent Alumni of
Sctiool had 5 points and Inter-State transfer case had 5 D
points.
Under the Notification dated 18th December, 2013,
the children of the appellants became eligible fqr
admission inter alia on the basis of being children of
parents were transferred inter State - by being allotted 5 E
points. The appellants had participated in the draw of lots
and secured 75% points i.e. 70 points for Neighborhood
and 5 points for Inter State Transfer, and were successful.
Subsequently however, the Administration issued
Notification dated 27th February, 2014, changing the very F
basis of the admission granted to the appellants'
children, by deleting the points for Inter State Transfer
cases and deciding to determine eligibility on the basis
of Neighborhood Sibling. Pursuant to Notification dated
27.2.2014, three directions were issued to Recognized G
Unaided Private Schools of Delhi for strict compliance.
Aggrieved, the appellants filed writ petition before the
High Court. The High Court while issuing notice granted
interim stay of only direction no.3 and directed that all
candidates having equal marks shall be considered H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 s.c.13.
A equally by conducting a fresh draw of lots, wherever
necessary. Aggrieved, the appellants filed writ appeals
whereupon the Division Bench of the High Court passed
the impugned interim order dated 3.4.2014 whereby while
adjourning the appeals, the admission process was
B directed to be allowed to be completed for the other
categories of students except the candidates of the
appellants who were transferred to Delhi from different
States of India. ·
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1. These matters were heard on several dates
in order to find out the solution. The respondents, have
not given satisfactory answer to the question as to
whether after the admission process started on the basis
D of Notification dated 18.12.2013, can it be changed by
putting a fresh condition. In spite of several opportunities
given to the Delhi Administration, it has not been able to
sort out the problems of accommodating the children of
the appellants to the entry level, whose admission has
E been cancelled due to deletion of Inter-State Transfer
points by Notification dated 27th February, 2014. [Paras
15, 16] [746-H; 747-A-C]
2. Indisputably, imparting elementary and basic
education is a constitutional obligation on the States as
F well as societies running educational institutions. The
children are not only future citizens but also the future of
the Earth. Elders in general and parents and teachers in
particular owe a responsibility for taking care of the well-
being and welfare of the children. [Para 17] [747-C-E]
G
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (No.1), 347 US
483 - referred to.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would
not be proper for the children whose parents have been
H transferred to Delhi from different States of India to be
MAJ. SAURABH CHARAN v. LT. GOVERNOR, NCT 741
OF DELHI
denied admission in the schools much less the non-aided A
schools because of the instructions issued by the
Government through its Education Department. It is
appropriate to relieve the appellants from the hardship of
having the admission being granted earlier under
Notification dated 18th December, 2013 from being taken B
away by the subsequent Notification dated 27th
February, 2014, issued in the mid-stream. It was not
permissible for the Administration•to alter the basis of
admission after the admission process had started and
further having participated in the selection process the c
criteria for selection could not have been questioned by
unsuccessful participants. [Paras 18, 19) [ 747-G-H; 748-
A-C]
4. In the circumstances, it is directed the admissions
already granted to the appellants' children shall not be D
disturbed on the basis of impugned Notification dated
27th February, 2014 deleting points for Inter State
Transfer. These children shall c·ontinue their study in.
those schools where they got admitted or selected for
admission. In course of argument, the appellants, E
furnished a l_ist of 22 parents having 24 candidates
belonging to Inter-State Transfer category, who are
successful under Notification dated 18th December, 2013.
These 24 candidates shall get admission, if not at all
admitted, beihg the successful candidates under the F
Inter-State Transfer category under Notification dated
18th December, 2013. The Administration shall take steps
to accommodate these students in various schools
within its jurisdiction by increasing the number of seats
in such schools. However, this order would only enure G
to the benefit of those who had approached the Court. It
would certainly not extend the benefit to those who had
not approached the Court or might have gone in slumber.
[Paras 20, 21) (748-D-H; 749-A]
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference:
347 us 483 referred to Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5379-5380 of 2014.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.04.2014 in LPA
. No. 237/2014, 238/2014 of the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi.
Nidhesh Gupta, Aditi Gupta, Tarun Gupta for the
C Appellants.
V.K. Gupta, Raju Ramachandran, Ruchira Gupta, Shishir
Deshpande, B.K. Jauhari, Purnima Jauhari, Mahender Singh,
Deepak Anand, Senthil Jagadeesan, Devashish Bharukha,
Rekha'Pandey, Shadman Ali, D.S Mahra, Kamal Gupta, Gagan·
D Gupta for. the Responents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
E· 2. Appellants have preferred these appeals by special
leave against the interim order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the
High Court of Delhi in LPA No.238 of 2014 and LPA No. 237
of 2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while
adjourning the said appeals directed that the admission
F process shall be allowed to be completed for the other
categories of students except the candidates of the appellants
who have been transferred to Delhi from different States of India.
3. The present appellants were transferred to Delhi from
different States of India. As a result of which many parents have
G to give up the admission of their children in previous places and
have to shift to Delhi in the mid of the session. Because of that,
their children did not get admission in any of the schools in Delhi
and' lost one academic year.
H 4. On 18.12.2013, Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi made
. I
I
MAJ. SAURABH CHARAN v. LT. GOVERNOR, NCT 743
OF DELHI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
order to amend Recognised Schools (Admission Procedure for A
Pre-Primary Class) Order, 2007, according to which admission
to open seats in the schools shall be made only on the basis
of following fixed parameters and points and further clarifying
that vacant/unfilled seat(s), if any, shall be filled by draw of lots.
B
• S.No . Parameters/Criteria Points
1. Neighbourhood up to 6 km 70
•
2. Sibling studying in school 20
3. Parent Alumni of School 05 c
4. Inter-State transfer case 05
Total 100
Notification also specified separate guidelines for Minority D
Schools, Schools setup for specific government services like
-Armed Forces/Paramilitary Forces/Central Services/All India
Services. But we shall constrain ourselves to the admission
procedure in private unaided recognized schools in Delhi.
E
5. On 14.2.2014, guidelines were issued by the
Directorate of Education to eliminate any possible
malpractices under interstate transfer category cases. The
Department instructed schools to be extra vigilant about
possible manipulations under interstate transfer category and F
make due diligence to verify the genuineness of transfer
certificates, including verification from the source of issue of
such a certifjcate. The Directorate of Education also instructed
schools to prepare data of applications received under
interstate transfer with particulars like number of applications, G
place from where transfer took place, and number of
applications the schools have "specifically received from NCR
that shares its border with Delhi". The Department also hinted
at constituting a special team to conduct random inspections
of schools for verification of claims and Schools shall produce
H
_744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2014) 6 S.C.R.
A such certificates for the inspection of the team specially
constituted for this purpose by the Directorate of Education.
6. To address the grievances of the parents in connection
with the entry level admission in private unaided recognized
·schools of Delhi, the Directorate of Education on 17.2.2014
8 constituted Inspection Team at each district of Delhi with a
direction to conduct random checking for verification of
certificates/documents submitted to ensure their genuineness
and acceptability in term of fixed admission criteria.
C 7. While hearing matter, the High Court on 26.2.2014
directed the State Government to take a decision with regard
to interstate transfer category and to issue a fresh schedule for
draw of lots by 27.2.2014. After taking cognizance of
complaints/representations and on perusal of sample data
D collected by the Inspecting Team and in compliance of
aforesaid order of the High Court, the Directorate of Education
on 27.2.2014 issued a Notification and decided to do away
with the Inter-State Transfer Case criterion and deleted points
of interstate transfer cases.
E 8. Pursuant to aforesaid Notification dated 27.2.2014,
following directions have been issued to Recognized Unaided
Private Schools of Delhi for strict compliance:
1. With the deletion of points of 'inter State Transfer Cases,
F the points shall be determined only as per Neighborhood'
Sibling studying in schools and 'Parent Alumni of Schools
criteria.
2. The list(s) already declared by the school till date will
now get modified to the extent that those seats assigned
G
earlier to inter-state transfer case category applicants shall
stand vacated.
3. If the school has conducted draw of lots for those
applicants securing 70 points that draw shall remain valid
H for the selected/confirmed candidates only. Fresh draw of
MAJ. SAURABH CHARAN v. LT. GOVERNOR, NCT 745
OF DELHI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
lots shall be held for remaining applicants having 70 points A
including wait listed applicants and those applicants who
were earlier securing 75 points because of Inter-State
Transfer Case Category.
9. Aggrieved by this notification, appellants moved the B
High Court by filing Writ Petition No.1497/2014, lJPOn which,
the High Court while issuing notice on 6.3.2014 granted interim
stay of only direction no.3 and directed that all candidates
having equal marks shall be considered equally by conducting
a fresh dr~w of lots, wherever necessary.
c
10. Aggrieved by t~e aforesaid order of the High Court,
writ petitioners preferred LPA No.238/2014 before the Division
Bench of the High Court. This order was also challenged in LPA
No.237/2014 by some of the 70 points holder parents, who
were selected in draw of lots but their admission stand D
cancelled.
11. After hearing learned senior counsel on either side and
after noting that the learned Single Judge himself was prima
facie of the view that the inter-state transfer case category was
validly done away with by virtue of the Notification dated E
27.2.2014 as also the fact that the appellant therein and those
similarly situated were not parties before the learned Single
Judge, the High Court on 3.4.2014 while adjourning the matter,
opined that the selection granted to the appellants and similarly
situated persons ought to be confirmed. The High Court directed F
that the first part of Condition no.3 of the Notification dated
27.2.2014 would operate with full vigour. High Court, however,
deferred its decision till next date of hearing so far as second
part of this Condition no.3 is concerned. High Court also
directed that till next dat~ of hearing no fresh draw of lots shall G
take place.
12. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Raju
Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents.
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R.
A 13. Admittedly under the Notification dated 18th
December, 2013, the children of the appellants had become
eligible for admission inter alia on the basis of being children
of parents who have been transferred inter State -by being
allotted 5 points. The appellants had participated in the draw
B of lots and secured 75% points i.e. 70 points for Neighborhood
and 5 points for Inter State Transfer, and were successful.
Acting on some information, arid not on the basis of a case by
case enquiry, the Administration came to the conclusion that
approximately 50% seats were being taken by those who had
c taken the Inter State Transfer points and· therefore the
Administration issued Notification dated 27th February, 2014,
changing the very basis of the admission granted to the
appellants' children, by deleting the points for Inter State
Transfer cases and decided to determine eligibility on the basis
of Neighborhood Sib_ling.
0
14. It has been contended by learned counsel for the
appellants that the very basis of the Notification dated 27th
February, 2014, that approximately 50% of the seats were
being claimed by the appellants' children under the Inter State
E Transfer category is incorrect since data provided by the
Director of Education before the High Court on 24.03.2014
shows that tr.e number of seats allocated to Inter State Transfer
category is 2925, which is not more than 9% of the total seats
available for that category. Therefore, the basis of the
F Notification that approximately 50% of the Open Seats were
claimed by the claimants under the Inter State Transfer category
is baseless. However, according to learned counsel for the
appellants the genuine cases had already been separ~ted from
the fake cases at an earlier stage and there were no reason
G to delete the points for lnt~r State Transfer category on this
count.
15. These matters were heard on several dates in order
to find out the solution. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents, has not given
H
MAJ. SAURABH CHARAN v. LT. GOVERNOR, NCT 747
OF DELHI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
satisfactory answer to the question posed by us as to whether A
after the admission process started on the basis of Notification
dated 18.12.2013, can it be changed by putting a fresh
condition.
16. In spite of several opportunities given to the Delhi
8
Administration, it has not been able to sort out the problems of
accommodating the children of the appellants to the entry level,
whose admission has been cancelled due to deletion of Inter-
state Transfer points vide Notification dated 27th February,
2014.
c
17. Indisputably, imparting elementary and basic education
is a constitutional obligation on the States as well as societies
running educational institutions. This Court held that children are
not only future citizens but also the future of the Earth. Elders
in general and parents and teachers in particular' owe a D
responsibility for taking care of the well-being and welfare of
the children. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (No. 1},
347 US 483, Earl Warren C.J., speaking for the US Supreme
Court, emphasised the right to education in the following terms:
"Today, education is perhaps the most important function E
of State and local Governments. . . . It is required in the
performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even
service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of
good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in
awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for F
later professional training, and in helping him to adjust
normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that
any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life
if he is denied the opportunity of an education."
G
18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, would it be
:proper for. the children whose parents have been transferred
to Delhi from different States of India can be denied admission
in the schools much less the non-aided schools because of the
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R.
A instructions issued by the Government through its Education
Department.
19. Having considered the matter, we deem it appropriate
to relieve the appellants from the hardship of having the
admission being granted earlier .under Notification dated 18th
8 December, 2013 from being taken away by the subsequent
Notification dated 27th February, 2014, issued in the mid-
stream. In our considered opinion, it was not permissible for
the Administration to alter the basis of admission after the
admission process had started and further having participated
C in the selection process the criteria for selection could not have
been questioned by unsuccessful participants.
20. In the circ1.1mstances, we direct that the admissions
already granted to the appellar;its' children shall not be disturbed
0 on the basis of impugned Notification dated 27th February,
2014 deleting points for Inter State Transfer. These children
shall continue their study in those schools where they got -
admitted or selected for admission.
21. In course of argument, Mr. Gupta, learneq,senior
E counsel appearing for the appellants, furnished a list of 22
parents having 24 candidates belonging to Inter-State Transfer
category, who are successful under Notification dated 18th
December, 2013. Learned senior counsel submitted that these
candidates are also entitled to get admission and continue
F study in those schools. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel appearing for Delhi Administration, fairly submitted that
these 24 canpidates shall also be accommodated in the
schools. Therefore, we direct that these 24 candidates shall get
admission, if not at all admitted, being the successful
G candidates under the lnter~State Transfer category under
Notification dated 18th December, 2013. It goes without saying
that the Administration shall take steps to accommodate these
students in various schools within its jurisdiction by increasing
the·number of seats in such schools. However, it is made clear/
H that this order would only enure to the benefit of those who had
MAJ. SAURABH CHARAN v. LT. GOVERNOR, NCT 749
OF DELHI [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
approached the Court. It would certainly not extend the benefit A
to those who had not approached the Court or might have gone
in slumber.
22. With the aforesaid directions and observations, these
civil appeals are disposed of. Consequently, the writ petitions 8
and the appeals pending in Delhi High Court also stand·
disposed of. ·
Bibhuli Bhushan Bose Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "right to education"Sign in to search