Sangita Dhingra Sehgal JUDGMENT
G. Rohini, C.J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 2699/2016. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
3. As could be seen from the material available on record, Master Priyanshu, aged about 7 years, was injured in a motor accident and his left leg was amputated below knee. In the petition (MACT No. 123/11) for compensation pending before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), NE, Karkardooma Courts, the mother of the injured boy moved an application seeking a direction that the boy be admitted in a school under the 'Economically Weaker Section' (EWS Category) stating that he was unable to go to the school as the financial condition of the family was not good. On 18.01.2016, MACT passed an order directing Siddharth International Public School (the writ petitioner/appellant herein), which is nearby to the residence of the injured boy, to consider the admission of Master Priyanshu in the EWS Category. By order dated 14.03.2016, it was further directed by MACT that Master Priyanshu shall be admitted in 1st Standard.
4. Assailing the said order passed by MACT, Siddharth International Public School (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant school') filed W.P.(C) No. 2699/2016 contending inter alia that Master Priyanshu is not eligible for admission since he crossed the upper age limit prescribed under the statutory rules for admission to Class I. It was also contended that MACT did not have the jurisdiction to direct admission of Master Priyanshu in the appellant school, more particularly, in the absence of vacant EWS seats in the appellant school.
5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the direction by MACT to admit in the appellant school under EWS Category is without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside the same. However, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and in accordance with Section 12(c) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (for short 'RTE Act'), the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition reiterating the direction that the appellant school shall grant admission to Master Priyanshu in Class I. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2016 may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"33. Though, this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-school that the MACT had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner-school to grant admission to a victim and the said direction could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-school, yet it is of the opinion that the impugned direction to admit Master Priyanshu is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
34. This Court finds that Master Priyanshu lost his left leg below the knee, when he met with an accident with a bus. Below the left leg, Master Priyanshu now has a prosthetic leg.
35. Father of Master Priyanshu died a few months after Master Priyanshu's accident on account of cancer.
36. The mother of Master Priyanshu, Ms. Babli works in a local factory/workshop that manufactures plastic spoons. Her job is to pack the manufactured spoons in boxes. In addition, she does some sewing work on duppattas etc. from her home for the residents of the area. She claims that from both these jobs put together she makes Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,000 in a month.
37. According to reports filed by the Field Officer and co-counsel for respondent no. 2-DOE, Master Priyanshu speaks conversational Hindi and can understand and answer all questions in Hindi. He can a........