Suman Tejpal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 405 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the order dated 8th September, 2004 whereby the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110088 notified the petitioner of cancellation of the admission of her son Vaibhav Tejpal under the special dispensation quota of the Ministry of Human Resources Development on the allegations that the list of names whereby admission was granted had been forged by her.

2. The challenge made in this petition is based on the averment that the petitioner had registered her son Vaibhav Tejpal, then aged five and a half years for admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya, T P Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi by submission of an admission form for the purposes of securing admission in class 1 in the school. According to the petitioner she made enquiries from the various lists notified for admission and kept on enquiring about the status and stage of admission of her son. Finally, on 30th July, 2004, the petitioner was told that a list of 110 students had been notified under the special dispensation quota in which her son was shown at serial no. 110. The petitioner further contends that this was orally told to her without showing her the actual list.

3. It is further stated that the petitioner was directed to and so deposited the fees for the period from April, 2004 to September, 2004 in respect of her son Vaibhav Tejpal vide receipt no. 16383 dated 30th July, 2004. Her son started attending the school regularly without any objections till 8th September, 2004.

The petitioner submits that without issuance of any notice to show cause, she was handed over a letter dated 8th September, 2004 issued by the Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, T P Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi notifying the petitioner that the admission of her son was cancelled on the purported ground that the petitioner had forged the name of her son in the list of admissions under the special dispensation quota. The petitioner was further notified that action would be initiated for the alleged act of forgery on her part.

4. The petitioner denies having any role to play in the preparation of the lists of candidates or its being carried from Kendriya Vidyalaya Headquarters to the school at Pitam Pura. The petitioner submits that the allegations made in the letter of 8th September, 2004 are wholly unfounded and that the respondents have conducted themselves in a totally arbitrary and mala fide manner. The respondents did not permit the petitioner's son to attend the school from the 9th September, 2004 and as a result a valuable academic session has been lost by him.

5. The order dated 8th September, 2004 canceling the admission is challenged mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and denial of notice to show cause prior to making the impugned order. The petitioner also submits that the order has been made by non-application of mind and that it was the responsibility of the respondents to verify the list prior to giving admission to the child and not in mid session more than three months after the academic session had commenced.

6. The respondents put in appearance after receipt of the notice to show cause and have filed a counter affidavit vehemently disputing the assertions of the petitioner. During the course of hearing it was submitted that the name of the petitioner's son was not recommended by the Ministry of Human Resources Development under the special dispensation of the Minister. It is submitted that the Minister had recommended names of 110 students in which the name of Vaibhav Tejpal did not feature. It is further submitted that as per the scheme of admissions, children whose names are recommended for admission under special dispensation had been to get their names registered as they are admitted directly. The respondents disputed the validity of the petitioner's son admission on the ground that the very fact that she had registered her child's name before the issuance of the list itself shows that the child's name did not feature in the above list. According to the respondents, the Ministry of Human Resources Development had sent a list of 110 names. The name of Master Vaibhav Tejpal did not feature in these 110 names. The list issued contained first 61 names pertaining to Kendriya Vidyalayas located in Delhi, the names shown from serial no. 62 to 95 pertained to Kendriya Vidyalayas located in the state of Madhya Pradesh; from 96 to 99 were names related to Kendriya Vidyalayas in the state of Bihar; 101 to 110 pertained to Kendriya Vidyalayas located in Haryana and lastly from serial no. 102 to 109 pertaining to Kendriya Vidyalayas located in Uttar Pradesh.

7. The respondents have sought to explain that against the name mentioned at serial no. 22 in the list sent by the Ministry, the location of the school was mentioned as the "Atomic Energy Department". As such this admission could not be effected and consequently the Kendriya Vidyalaya School Headquarter sent a list of only 109 names dated 6/8th July, 2004 for admission under the special dispensation quota. No list containing 110 recommendations is stated to have been issued from the Kendriya Vidyalaya School Headquarters.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a parent name Suman who had shown her address as AG-115, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 88 had submitted the same list in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shalimar Bagh where the name of a Master Prateek figured at serial no. 110 for admission in class 3. According to the respondents, a list of 109 names was sent by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Scheme Headquarters wjocj contained a region-wise allocation. The list submitted by the petitioner for admission of her son in class 1 of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitam Pura is not a genuine document. When this was brought to the notice of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, it had issued an order dated 24th August, 2004 intimating the school that admission of the Prateek son of Suman in class 3 did not appear to be an original admission as the headquarters had sent a list containing only 109 names. Allegations of forgery in respect of the list on the basis of which Prateek had been admitted were made.

9. The action taken by the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitam Pura, T P Block, Delhi - 110088 is supported on the ground that the original list issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan does not contain the name of the child of the petitioner under the special dispensation quota.

10. I have given my considered thought to the record of the case and the oral submissions made during the course of hearing. The petitioner has not denied the allegations made by the respondents. There is no dispute to the fact that the Ministry of Human Resources Development had recommended 110 names which did not contain the name of Master Vaibhav Tejpal under the special dispensation quota for admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. It is also not disputed that such list of 110 names contained one name at serial no. 22 against which the school referred to was relating to "Atomic Energy Department" . Inasmuch as there was no such school, no admission of such child based on a recommendation of this kind could be made and was not made by the respondents. There is no reason to disbelieve that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Headquarters had actually, therefore, recommended only 109 names for admission to the different Kendriya Vidyalayas. Perusal of such a list also shows that the recommendations by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan are made in blocks relating to different states. As explained in the counter affidavit, the first 61 names pertained to Kendriya Vidyalaya located in Delhi, the next block relates to recommendation for admissions in the State of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter to Bihar, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. None of the list placed on record contained the name of Master Vaibhav Tejpal. Therefore, neither the Ministry of Human Resources Development nor the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Headquarters recommended the name of Master Vaibhav Tejpal under the special dispensation quota.

11. I also find that the scheme for recommendation under the special dispensation quota did not envisage registration for admissions. The petitioner however had registered the name of her child with the school for admission as back as in March, 2004. This fact also supports the case of the respondents that the petitioner's child had not even been considered for admission under the special dispensation quota.

Under these circumstances, the admission of the petitioner's son was obviously wholly illegal and could not have been permitted to stand.

12. It is a settled principle of law that the provisions of natural justice have to be complied with prior to passing of any administrative order with civil consequences.

Reference maybe made to the judgments of the Apex Court reported at entitled State of Orissa v. Dr. Ms. Beena Pani Dei; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner; entitled A.K. Kraipak v Union of India and 1982 SCC 338 Raj Rani and Anr. v. MCD in this behalf. The minimum requirement of compliance with principle of natural justice would include issuance and service of a notice to show cause and an opportunity to represent one's case.

It has been held that the provisions of natural justice would be read into statutory provisions which are silent on the same prior to withdrawal of a service. Notice to show cause would be read into statutory rules as held in .

The Apex Court has held that demands of natural justice are met only if an opportunity to represent its case in view of a proposed action is given. The court held that they are not met even if the person proceeded against has furnished the very information on which the impugned action is based. According to the Supreme Court, merely because facts are admitted, it does not ipso facto follow that principles of natural justice need not be observed. Even independent proof of prejudice is not required and the principles of natural justice know of no exception as per the law laid down in entitled S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan.

13. In the instant case the petitioner was not put to notice prior to the issuance of the orders of cancellation of admission and the respondents have also stated that action is being taken for forgery of the petitioner in the letter of 8th September, 2004. Such allegations could not have been made without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain her side of the story. The petitioner has contended before me that she was not responsible for any forgery and had nothing to do with the list which was submitted to the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Pitam Pura, Delhi - 88. To this extent, I am inclined to uphold the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that she was entitled to a notice to show cause and an opportunity to make a representation of her case to the respondents before they proceed in the matter relating to the allegations of forgery.

14. However, so far as the admissions are concerned, the fact remains that irrespective of the stand of the present petitioner who is alleged to have committed the act of forgery, the name of the petitioner's son was not recommended by the Ministry and as such the child could not have been admitted under the special dispensation scheme. The admitted position is that the child is not pursuing the course since 8th September, 2004. Almost six months have lapsed and the academic session is almost at its end. The petitioner has submitted that the fees was deposited only on the 31st July, 2004. As such the child had attended barely five to six weeks of classes prior to issuance of the impugned letter dated 8th September, 2004. In these circumstances, pending issuance of the notice to show cause and hearing thereon, I am not inclined to restore the admission of the child. However, in case the respondents arrive at a different conclusion, the ward of the petitioner would be entitled to consideration or restoration of the admission of the child and appropriate action to enable the child to complete the academic course in accordance with their settled procedure.

15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue a notice to show cause to the petitioner in respect of the allegations made in the order dated 8th September, 2004 within two weeks of the passing of the judgment. The petitioner is given liberty to place her reply and all material in support thereof on record before the respondents within one week on the receipt of the notice. The respondents shall intimate the petitioner of a date not beyond three days of the receipt of her reply for hearing to her/or her authorised representative and thereafter proceed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks. In case the respondents arrive at a finding in favor of the petitioner, the respondents shall take all actions immediately on passing of their order on the petitioner's representation with regard to restoration/fresh admission of the petitioner's son Vaibhav Tejpal within one week of the passing of the order.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

There will be no order as to costs.