Admit kids of all Central staff, Supreme Court tells Sanskriti

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Delhi high court judgment quashing 60 per cent quota for children of Class I officers of Central government in Sanskriti School in the capital on condition that for this year the school must admit children of all classes of civil/defence and allied services of Central government, who have transferable jobs.

A three-judge bench of Justices Anil R. Dave, C. Nagappan and A.K. Goel passed this interim order on appeals filed by Sanskriti School and others which was supported by the Union government through attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi. Sanskriti School, Chanakyapuri, was started in 1998 by spouses of top government officers, had 60 per cent seats reserved for children of Group A officers, 10 per cent for general public, 5 per cent for staff and 25 per cent for children under EWS category.

The A-G submitted that the Union of India had already filed an affidavit in the Delhi high court in which it said the school has been advised to grant reservation in admissions to the wards of all employees of civil/defence and allied services who have transferable jobs.

Taking on record the A-G’s submission, the bench said the admissions shall be made as per the interim order. In the meanwhile, the A-G assured the court that the Centre will come out with a comprehensive scheme on admissions of children of Central government employees. The bench posted the matter for the final hearing on April 6.

The bench made it clear that it was not going into the validity of the notification issued by the Delhi government on January 6 quashing management quota in all schools as the matter is pending in the Delhi high court.

The high court in 2006 had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue after reports that the school was charging “nearly 40 per cent less fees from the children of Group-A officers of the Union Government vis-à-vis other children.”

In November, the high court had quashed the 60 per cent quota observing that the constitutional right to education includes the right to “equality in education” which is “perhaps only possible through a common school system.”

The high court applied the legal concept of “compelling reasons” for “segregation” evolved by the US Supreme Court, observing, “Reserving seats for a particular branch of the Indian Services disadvantages children of persons engaged in other branches.”

The court had rejected the Centre’s stand justifying the funding and reservation allowed to the school on the grounds that there were “no good schools” or “elite schools” available for the children of Group A services officers. Appeals were filed challenging this judgment.