MASTER AHIL CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-13
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on March 04,2021

Master Ahil Choudhury Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Talapatra, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents who in terms of the order dated 25.02.2021 has produced the written instruction, the file No.F.25(118)- DEE/LA/2021.
(2.) By means of this intra-court appeal the order dated 06.01.2021 delivered in W.P.(C) No.764 of 2020, has been questioned. According to the appellant, represented by his father, the neighbourhood school in which the appellant sought admission in nursery for the academic year 2019-2020 did not accommodate him. A lottery for admission was held on 29.03.2020. The appellant participated in the said lottery through his father. According to the appellant, 100 seats were available for admission. Out of 100 seats, 52 seats were marked for admission of students from UR category, 17 seats were marked for admission of students from SC category and 31 seats were marked for admission of students from ST category. After the lottery, 52 students belonging to UR category were admitted, 17 students belong to SC category were also admitted and 21 students belonging to ST category were admitted, but out of 31 seats 10 seats could not be filled up. As a result, the Director of Elementary Education has initiated a proposal for de-reservation of those seats. While granting de-reservation, the authorities concerned acceded to the proposal to the Director of Elementary Education and provided that against 3 UR students, one SC candidate 3:1 , be admitted against the available seats which could not be filed up. The said formula for de-reservation has been referred as 3:1. Following that formula, the available seats have been filled up. The appellant has urged that he should be admitted to the said school, namely Sishu Bihar H.S. School as neighbourhood school and the arrangement of filling up of the additional seats, as arisen for non-availability of the adequate number of the ST students, be followed. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 06.02.2020 has for dismissal of the writ petition observed as under: It appears that the ST category seats could not be filled for non-availability of sufficient number of candidates upon which the authorities de-reserved 10 seats of which 8 were filled through unreserved category students, 2 went to SC category students who are respondents No.4 and 5. The petitioner who belongs to unreserved category hopes that if the respondents No.4 and 5 are not admitted, he could secure admission. For a multiple reasons, the prayers cannot be granted. Firstly, the admissions were granted almost a year back. The entire academic year is virtually over. It would be nullifying admissions made in an academic institution nearly a year back which cannot be undone at this stage. More fundamentally, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents No.4 and 5 though belong to SC category, were admitted as reserved category students. Merely because they were students of SC community, does not debar them from being considered for admission in UR quota.
(3.) Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has quite strenuously submitted that in terms of Section 3 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 every child has right to get admission in the neighbourhood school. For this purpose, Mr. Pal, learned counsel has referred to Section 3 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 which provides thus: 3. Right of child to free and compulsory education: (1) Every child of the age of six to fourteen years, including a child referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 2, shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her elementary education. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing the elementary education. (3) A child with disability referred to in sub-clause (A) of clause (ee) of section 2 shall, without prejudice to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996), and a child referred to in sub-clauses (B) and (C) of clause (ee) of section 2, have the same rights to pursue free and compulsory elementary education which children with disabilities have under the provisions of Chapter V of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996): Provided that a child with 'multiple disabilities' referred to in clause (h) and a child with 'severe disability' referred to in clause (o) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999) may also have the right to opt for home-based education. Emphasis added ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.