The Allahabad High Court recognised that receiving proper education is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. The Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Subhash Vidyarthi, while dealing with a case, observed that educational institutions must ensure that grievances relating to admission to an institution are redressed with promptness and do not remain unattended, as stated in a report by IANS.
The Bench was hearing a case on Tanishk Srivastava, a Class VIII student. He had appeared in an entrance test for admission as a resident scholar in Class VIII in La Martiniere College, Lucknow, on March 20, 2022. Results for the same were declared on March 25 and Tanishk was declared eligible for admission. However, he could not join school as his mother was seriously ill and his father was out of the state.
His father then filed an application before the school management on April 4 to allow admission of his son as a day scholar instead of a resident scholar, as he was ready to complete all required formalities, including payment of fees. However, the father (appellant/writ petitioner) was not informed about the status of the admission of his son until April 18. He then filed a writ petition before the court which was dismissed by a single judge.
Challenging the writ petition, the father of the candidate moved an instant appeal before the division bench. The court upheld the order of the single judge who had dismissed the writ plea on the grounds that as the institution was an unaided minority private institution, the writ petition against it may not be entertained. However, the court also observed that the institution should have communicated the specific information (whether Tanishk could be admitted to the school as a resident scholar) to the parents of the student at the earliest so that they could have taken appropriate steps.
The Allahabad High Court said, "This is not a case where the student has not qualified the entrance examination for getting admission in particular class but this is a case where such student has qualified such entrance examination as a resident scholar but due to compelling and unavoidable circumstances, he could not get admission as a resident scholar...Therefore, in such compelling circumstances, at least on the basis of principles of equity, it was bare minimum required on the part of the principal of the institution to apprise the parents of the student that the institution would be unable to provide admission to their ward in Class VIII as a day scholar student."
They also noted that if the request of the student and his parents was not liable to be accepted by the institution, then this should also have been conveyed to the parents so that the student could take admission in any other institution to receive proper education which is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21A.
