EWS/DG quota and inclusive admission rights were upheld for a disabled child seeking Class I admission.

EWS/DG admissions are to be computed on the total strength of the class at entry level, not only on the general category strength, and where the intake falls short a private unaided school may be directed to admit a child against an available seat. A child with disability and no prior formal schooling cannot be denied Class I admission on technical objections as to age proof or alleged vacancy where the RTE framework supports admission to an appropriate class. Directions for inclusive facilities, including special educators and barrier-free access, were upheld as consistent with the statutory duty to provide accessible education.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a private unaided school can be directed to admit a child against the EWS/DG quota on the basis that the quota is to be computed on the total strength of the class and not only on the general category strength. (ii) Whether a child with disability and no prior formal schooling can be denied admission in Class I on the ground of disputed age proof or alleged lack of vacancy. (iii) Whether the school could resist directions relating to inclusive facilities such as special educators and barrier-free access.

Issue (i): Whether a private unaided school can be directed to admit a child against the EWS/DG quota on the basis that the quota is to be computed on the total strength of the class and not only on the general category strength.

Analysis: The relevant admission order and guidelines required twenty-five per cent admissions from EWS/DG at the entry level on the strength of the class. The expression was held to refer to the total strength of the class. On the admitted figures, the EWS/DG intake was below the required proportion, leaving at least one vacancy available. The school could therefore be required to admit the child against that seat.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner-school and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether a child with disability and no prior formal schooling can be denied admission in Class I on the ground of disputed age proof or alleged lack of vacancy.

Analysis: The right to education under the RTE framework was treated as child-centric and not defeated by technical discrepancies in age documents. The birth certificate and parental declaration were considered in the statutory scheme, and Section 4 permitted admission to an appropriate class. The child's disability and absence of prior formal education supported admission in the first formal class rather than exclusion on age-based objections.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent and the child was held entitled to admission in Class I.

Issue (iii): Whether the school could resist directions relating to inclusive facilities such as special educators and barrier-free access.

Analysis: The statutory duty to provide free education in an appropriate environment for children with disability was read with the obligation to create an accessible and inclusive setting. The absence of such children in the school was held not to justify postponing preparedness. The objection that such facilities could not be directed by the Court was rejected in principle.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner-school and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not successful on the merits, and the child's entitlement to admission in Class I against an EWS/DG seat was sustained within the Court's writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: EWS/DG admissions are to be computed on the total strength of the class, and a disabled child without prior formal schooling cannot be denied admission to an appropriate entry-level class on technical objections when the statutory scheme supports inclusive admission.

---