* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2870/2011 and CM 6670/2011
Decided on: 01.02.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
RITA SEN, PRINCIPAL, DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate with
Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K.Singh, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Rahul Arora, father of respondent No.5 in
person.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/school, assailing the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by respondent No.3/Child Welfare Committee directing the petitioner/school to accommodate/admit Ms. Ruhani Arora, respondent No.5 in pre-school, upon completion of necessary formalities.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner/school is that respondent No.3/Child Welfare Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing such directions, more so when no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/school to explain the facts of the case. It is also the W.P.(C) 2870/2011 Page 1 of 4 grievance of the petitioner/school that while passing the impugned order, respondent No.3 was well aware of the fact that the parents of respondent No.5 had already moved respondent No.2/Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights to seek identical relief and an enquiry was pending consideration before the said Commission. However, without awaiting the outcome of the said enquiry, respondent No.3/Child Welfare Committee had hastily issued the aforesaid directions.
3. Notice was issued on the present petition on 02.05.2011. On the said date, it was directed that in the meantime, respondent No.2 would complete the enquiry in the matter within two weeks. On 11.05.2011, the operation of the impugned order dated 19.04.2011 was stayed. The said interim order has continued to operate in favour of the petitioner/school. On 29.08.2011, the statement of Mr. Rahul Arora, father of respondent No.5 was recorded to the effect that the minor child had already been granted admission in Queen Mary School.
4. Counsel for the petitioner/school states that during the pendency of the present proceedings, respondent No.2 had taken a decision on 06.07.2011, wherein the Commission had arrived at a conclusion that initially, while following the point system for admissions, the petitioner/school had granted points to respondent No.5 under the head indicating if either of the parents are alumni of the school, and based on the same, the school authorities had qualified the child for provisional admission but, later on it was found that the said points could W.P.(C) 2870/2011 Page 2 of 4 not have been granted to respondent No.5 since neither of her parents were alumni of the school. It is contended by the father of respondent No.5 that while filling up the application form, they had not claimed any alumni points. Having regard to the criteria of points system fixed for admission of children in pre-school, respondent No.2 concluded that respondent No.5 was not discriminated against in comparison to other similarly placed students, who were admitted to the petitioner/school for the reason that they were granted more points than respondent No.5. It was further recorded by respondent No.2 that the school authorities having committed an error by declaring respondent No.5 as having qualified for admission, they ought to have gracefully accepted their fault and apologised to the father of respondent No.5 for the same.
5. Counsel for the petitioner/school states that the aforesaid order has attained finality as the parents of respondent No.5 have not challenged the same. He further states that as regards the issue of apology, the representatives of the school, had expressed contrition to the father of respondent No.5 during the course of verification of the form of respondent No.5. He further states that the petitioner/school would not stand to any formality in this regard and would have no hesitation in complying with the aforesaid directions of respondent No.2 so as to bring an amicable end to this regretful episode.
6. Mr. Rahul Arora, father of respondent No.5 is present in person and confirms the fact that he has not challenged the order dated W.P.(C) 2870/2011 Page 3 of 4 06.07.2011 passed by respondent No.2 on the complaint filed by him against the petitioner/school. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the present case was taken up by the Commission suo moto on the basis of news reports.
7. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that counsel for the petitioner/school states that an apology letter shall be despatched by the school directly to the parents of respondent No.5 within one week, and in view of the gesture of goodwill made by the school to pay the fee of the first quarter of respondent No.5 in the school in which she has been granted admission, which is `8,000/-, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition with directions to the petitioner/school to be more vigilant in future and ensure that no such incident is repeated on account of oversight/negligence on the part of its staff/officers.
8. The sum of `8,000/- is handed over by the counsel for the petitioner/school to Mr. Rahul Arora, father of respondent No.5, who states that he is not inclined to accept the same and instead, submits that the said amount may be given in charity. Mr. Rahul Arora shall be at liberty to offer the said amount as charity to any institution/cause of his choice.
9. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 1, 2012/rkb JUDGE
W.P.(C) 2870/2011 Page 4 of 4