HC urges DoE to consider implementing guidelines to correct typographical errors in EWS admission forms
New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has urged the Directorate of Education (DoE) of the Delhi government to consider implementing guidelines aimed at correcting typographical errors in admission forms submitted by applicants from the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The court’s decision comes in light of the challenges faced by applicants, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds who may lack the educational and technological proficiency necessary to navigate the admission process.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasised the vulnerability of EWS applicants, noting that “many of them may not be highly educated or technologically proficient.” She pointed out that “typographical errors have the potential of depriving candidates of their lawful right of getting admission in the school allotted to them through a draw of lots.” This ruling highlights the importance of accessibility in education, especially for those who are already at a disadvantage.
The case that brought this issue to light involved a young girl who applied for nursery admission at a private, unaided school under the EWS category. Due to a clerical error, the names of her grandparents were mistakenly entered in the application instead of her parents’. Despite being allotted a seat through a computerised draw by the DoE, the school refused to admit her, citing the error.
In her judgment, Justice Sharma reiterated that
the private school was bound to follow the guidelines established by the DoE. “It does not have any authority or power to change the particulars which were
filled originally by the candidate for the purpose of the draw of lots,” she stated, underscoring the school’s obligation to
adhere to the established admission process.
The court asserted that the only obstacle to the girl’s admission was the clerical mistake in her application form, while all other conditions had been satisfied and her documentation was in order. Justice Sharma declared, “Admission should not be denied to the petitioner herein, who has been allotted the respondent school by the DoE pursuant to the computerised draw of lots.”
Recognising the broader implications of such errors, the court called on the DoE to explore and frame appropriate guidelines that would allow for the correction of typographical mistakes through an appropriate application process. “These guidelines should ensure that deserving cases can rectify their errors without losing their right to admission,” the judge remarked.
The court’s directive included a specific order for the school to admit the girl, reinforcing the message that procedural issues should not prevent children from accessing education. As the DoE evaluates the need for systemic changes, this ruling serves as a vital reminder of the necessity for inclusivity in educational policies, particularly for the most vulnerable segments of society.
