A teacher’s search for his student
Perhaps the year was 1959 and we were close to finishing class VIII. A new English teacher Pradyumnababu (Mitra) joined…
Delhi High Court on Monday asked a private school here why it was not abiding by a court order directing it to admit a disabled minor boy in Class 1 under the economically weaker section (EWS) category.
"Now, there is a direction of this court (single judge), passed under … (an article of) the Constitution of India, you follow that," a bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra said, asking why it has not complied with the order.
The court’s observation came during the hearing of an appeal by Siddharth International Public School challenging the single judge’s August 26 order, which had asked it to admit the boy on the grond that he was legally entitled to a seat in the institution.
Advertisement
The single judge had issued the direction on the school’s plea against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order which had asked it to admit the physically disabled boy in class 1 under EWS or disadvantaged group (DG) category, for which 25 per cent seats are to be kept reserved, by giving him age relaxation.
The school had contended before the single judge that MACT lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order which was issued on a plea by the child’s mother.
Agreeing with the school on this point, the single judge had set aside the tribunal’s direction, but adopted the order and directed the institute to admit the boy.
Challenging the single judge order, the counsel for the school had submitted that there were no vacant seats under EWS category and the boy has already got admission in another school during the pendency of the writ petition.
The division bench reserved its judgement on the plea, saying it will consider all the aspects raised in the writ petition and pass the order.
The single judge had made it clear that the directions in the present case were passed "to rehabilitate an accident victim who also belongs to an EWS/DG category. There is nothing to suggest that in present case, justice and law cannot dwell together. After all, one should not forget that the purpose of all law is justice".
Advertisement
