Delhi High Court
Baby Tamanna Rana vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 1 August, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
1. Petitioner Baby Tamanna, who was born on 28.3.1997, after completing her nursery at Aryavarth Public School, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi, sought
admission with respondent No. 3 Mayur Public School. Petitioner complains that in the month of March, 2001, petitioner was informed that seats are already full and he could take his chance in July 2001. When the petitioner approached the school in July, they stated that as per rules petitioner should be 4 and a 1/2 years of age as on 1.4.2001. Accordingly petitioner not being 4 and a 1/2 years of age, could not be admitted to the primary (prep.) section. Petitioner claims that as per the instructions issued by respondent No. 1 Government of NCT of Delhi, child is required to be only 4 years of age as on 30th September of the relevant year. Petitioner has been illegally denied admission by respondent No. 3 managed by respondent No. 2 Society. Petitioner claims that a test was taken, in which the petitioner passed, yet admission has not been granted to Prep. and petitioner continues to be in the nursery section. Petitioner also complains of the respondent No. 2 having demanded donation and collecting money by way of building fund etc., while the building is actually fully built and ready. It is submitted that a sum of Rs. 8950/- was paid for which no receipt was issued.
2. I have also heard Mr. G.S. Sistani, counsel
for Government of NCT, Mr. Sandeep Sethi for respondents 2 and 3 in opposition to the writ petition.
3. Mr. Sandeep Sethi firstly submitted that the school of the respondents is not a Government aided school and writ petition against it is not maintainable. It is only recognised by the Government for Prep. and higher classes. Secondly he submits that the instructions on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner, do not apply to private/public schools, which are not government aided. He submits that the school has been uniformly following the practice of admitting children to class Prep. that is a class just below Class I, only if the child is 4 and a 1/2 years of age as on 1st April of the year in which admission is sought, Mr. Sandeep Sethi explains that the petitioner was less than 4 and a 1/2 years of age. Hence she could not be admitted to the Prep class. Admission was accordingly granted to the Nursery class, which the petitioner accepted. It is stated that petitioner duly paid the fees. Mr. Sandeep Sethi also refutes allegations of the school having demanded and accepted donations and non-issuance of
receipt for certain amount alleged to have been paid over and above the fees.
4. Mr. Sandeep Sethi has taken me through certain documents showing the admission of petitioner to Nursery class. He submits that petitioner's conduct in raising this issue perhaps stems out of his grievance of not being admitted to the Prep class. He submits that it was not possible to accommodate the petitioner in the Prep. class or Primary class on account of the age restriction followed by school.
Mr. G.S. Sistani has also clarified that instructions relied on by the petitioner appearing at pages 14 and 15 of the paper book applies only to the Sarvodaya Schools that is government schools and are not applicable to the petitioners.
5. Having noted the submissions of the parties and having perused the record, I find that respondent No. 3 is a non aided Government recognised school, to which the instructions issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi for Its own schools will not apply. Besides, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the other public schools also have prescribed different minimum age limits for admission to nursery and Prep classes. In the instant case respondent No. 2, in any case, cannot be faulted for uniformly following its practice, which has not been shown to be violative of any statute or regulations. The petitioner had been granted admission in the nursery class, which appears to have been duly accepted. It is not open for the petitioner to subsequent make a grievance in this regard.
Writ petition has no merit. It is hoped and expected that the school authorities will not react to the filing of the writ petition in any manner, which would reflect in their treatment of the child.
Writ petition is dismissed.
