HC directs private schools in Punjab to reserve seats for underprivileged children

In a significant move to ensure equal access to education, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed private unaided recognised schools in Punjab to reserve 25 per cent of their Class 1 seats for children from weaker and disadvantaged backgrounds.

The bench asserted that all private unaided recognised schools satisfying the criteria laid down under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, would – as an interim measure – reserve 25 per cent of seats in Class 1 “to be filled up exclusively by children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged group living in the neighbourhood of the school to provide free and compulsory education.”

The bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice HS Grewal was hearing a petition filed by KS Raju Legal Trust challenging a state rule that allegedly diluted the right to education for underprivileged children.

The rule says EWS students must first attempt to secure admission in government or aided schools. They could apply for reserved seats in private unaided schools only if no seats were available there. But admission to these seats would be made by a draw of lots.

Going into the technicalities, the petitioner contended that Rule 7(4) of the Punjab Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, was in conflicts with the central Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009.

Represented by Jagmohan Singh Raju, the petitioner submitted that the restrictions placed by Rule 7(4) virtually nullified the concept of Right to Education especially extended constitutionally to children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged group. Referring to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, he asserted it was obligatory for all schools referred to in a clause “to reserve 25 per cent of the strength of Class 1 to be filled up by children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged group, living in the neighbourhood to provide free and compulsory education”.

The court, in its interim order, observed that the state rule appeared to contradict the central law. In such cases, the Act would prevail over statutory rules. The Centre was represented by Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain with advocate Sushant Kareer.