Master Raja Babu Yadav vs The State Of Nct And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1316 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

Page 3029

Rule.

1. The parties to the petition waive their rights to file any additional reply and rejoinder and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken for final disposal.

2. The petitioner seeks admission to class I in S.D. Public School, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi under the scheme framed for the poor people who have been living below the poverty line.

3. The brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. He was admitted in Nursery class of Junior wing of respondent No. 4 in 2004-2005 in S.D. Montessori School. It was contended by the petitioners that respondent No. 5 is running the school.

4. The income of the petitioner No. 2 is about Rs. 28,500/- per annum. It was contended that pursuant to the directions issued to the schools a scheme to grant free education to the children of the persons living below the poverty line was framed. According to the petitioners the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 got the land allotted for running the school on concession from the authorities concerned and the rules and regulations which have been framed as regards the admission, charging of fees and other activities with respect to imparting education by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are binding on respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Respondent No. 5 is stated to be a Municipal Counselor from Ward No. 125, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He is also one of the leader of the ruling congress party. Respondent No. 5 is also stated to be the chairman of MCD, Karol Bagh zone, Delhi.

5. Petitioner No. 2 who is the father of petitioner No. 1 contended that he has four children and petitioner No. 1 is the youngest son. Petitioner No. 2 does small tailoring job in a shop measuring about 3ft x 5ft and his annual income is about Rs. 28,500/- and he is living below the poverty line. Petitioner No. 1 had been admitted to S.D. Montessori School run by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. At the time of admission petitioners had to pay a sum of Rs. 7000/- under various heads in the month of March, 2004 for the admission of petitioner No. 1 in nursery school. After the petitioner No. 1 was admitted and allotted admission No. 130/2004 another sum of Rs. 1,900/- was charged from petitioner No. 2 towards the fees of nursery class for the months April and May, 2004 After coming to know about the scheme framed for free education to poor students, which petitioner No. 2 came to know from the news which appeared in the News Paper on 21st January, 2004 and 22nd January, 2004 he consequently made a request to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by showing the newspaper cuttings and sought concession with respect to fees from the said respondents being a poor person.

Page 3030

6. Allegation of the petitioner is that at his request to grant free education to his son, derogatory language was used and he was even asked to approach the High Court and get admission there. According to petitioners S.D. Public School, respondent No. 4, is the senior wing and extension of S.D.Montessori Public School where the son of the petitioner was admitted.

7. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be a vigilant and bright child who performed well in the nursery class and was, therefore, promoted to KG class for the academic year 2005-2006 commencing from 1st April, 2005 and ending on 31st March, 2006. The petitioner No. 2 relied on the school diary of petitioner No. 1 to demonstrate that he had been vigilant about the activities pertaining to his son and there were no complaints either against his son or the petitioner No. 2. During December, 2005 an amount of Rs. 100 was extracted from the petitioner No. 2 for the Fete which was organized in the school and during the fete two persons of the school misbehaved with petitioner No. 2. On the complaint being made to the principal petitioner No. 2 was asked to come to school on 9th January, 2006. When the petitioner No. 2 went to the school on 9.1.2006 he was misbehaved and threatened entailing a complaint being made by the petitioner No. 2 to the police. According to the petitioner No. 2 the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 misbehaved with poor people and took such actions so as to eliminate all such students who are unable to meet unreasonable and unfair demands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Another student son of Mr. Sandeep Verma was also threatened with removal from school which led to demonstration organized against the illegal activities of respondent No. 4.

8. The petitioner No. 2 is stated to be the President of 'Parent association' and on account of various acts of respondent No. 4 a complaint was also made to Lt. Governor on 20.1.2006. The complaints were also made to other officials and dignitaries.

9. According to the petitioners the result of petitioner No. 1 was to be declared on 22.3.2006 and he was intimated about the admission to the next class, Class 1st on the same day. The intimation which was received by the petitioner regarding declaration of result and admission of petitioner No. 1 which is as under:

Dear Parents

As per the decision of the school managing committee, you are informed to attend the interaction/interview Along with your ward Raja Babu Yadav on 22nd March, 2006 at 11.30 a.m. regarding the admission of your ward in Class Ist. We solicit your cooperation for the smooth functioning of the school.

10. A copy of the said intimation has been produced by the petitioners. The petitioners went to the school of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 22nd March, 2006 with the assessment profile pertaining to petitioner No. 1 for the KG class which reflected good performance of petitioner No. 1 in the KG class.

11. The grievance of the petitioners is that when petitioner No. 2 on 22nd March, 2006, the same day when the result of the petitioner No. 1 for KG was given to him, went to respondent No. 4 and sought admission of petitioner No. 1 he was told that there are directions of respondent No. 5 not to give admission to petitioner No. 1 in the school run by respondent No. 5. It was stated that respondent No. 4 has been directed to take the interview of the Page 3031 petitioners for the admission in Class 1st though petitioner No. 1 was entitled for admission to the school respondent No. 4 as his performance had been good in the KG class and he had been promoted to the next class, i.e. Class I. The petitioners, therefore, could not be subjected to the interview. On an objection being raised by the petitioners against the alleged interview he was told that the interview is to be held as per the directions of respondent No. 5 and thereafter the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 refused to give admission to the petitioner No. 1 in Class 1st leading to filing of the present petition. On refusal of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to give admission to the petitioner No. 1 in class 1st, the petitioner No. 2 made a complaint to the Deputy Education officer on 29th March, 2006. The petitioners claimed that petitioner No. 1 is entitled for admission in freeship scheme which has been declined by the said respondents. It seems no action had been taken by the Deputy Director of Education on the complaint of the petitioners.

12. On the writ petition of the petitioners, the notices were issued to the respondents who replied to the writ petition. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed the reply, however, no reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

13. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 alleged that petitioner No. 2 is a political leader belonging to Samta/Janta Dal United party who also contested an election for the post of Councilor of the MCD in the year 2002 from East Patel Nagar and had opposed respondent No. 5. In the election petitioner No. 2 lost to respondent No. 5 and since losing the election he was nurturing a grudge against the school and wanted to take a revenge against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by hook or by crook and by adopting all means at his disposal. According to the respondents they did not have any grudge or personal vendetta against the petitioners which is inferable from the fact that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 gave admission to the petitioner No. 1 in the S.D.Montessori School in the year 2004 and the facts that despite various complaints and representations made by petitioner No. 2 against the school authorities, the petitioner No. 1 was declared pass in KG class and promoted to 1st class with no adverse remarks against the petitioner No. 1 even in the year 2006.

14. According to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the sole objective and purpose of petitioner No. 2 in raising the controversy is that he wants to settle the scores on account of losing the election in the year 2002 and thus petitioner No. 2 is trying to defame and humiliate the school authorities at every step by making false complaints to the authorities, the Director of Education, Police department and Lt. Governor. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have relied on letters written by petitioner No. 2 to members of Parliament and the Lt. Governor making complaints against them. It was also contended by the said respondents that the petitioners did not come for admission and interview on 22nd March, 2006 and therefore, petitioner No. 1 could not be admitted to 1st Class. Regarding the demonstration against the school it was contended that no guardian participated in the said demonstration except the hired henchmen who raised slogans against the school to defame the school and the authorities. The petitioner No. 2 is stated to be a self styled President of the so called Parents Association and has no moral, legal or official sanctity. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 emphasized that the parents association whose Page 3032 president-ship is claimed by the petitioner does not have any guardian as its member.

15. The fact that petitioner No. 2 is a poor person having an income of Rs. 28,500/- and entitled for free-ship for education of his son, petitioner No. 1, was also refuted and it was contended that how a person having fought a Municipal election, having a flat of his own and a mobile telephone and a landline connection at his shop can fall in the category of below poverty line. The certificate issued by the SDM was denied by the respondents who stated that the school had no grudge against the petitioner No. 1 or 2 which is evident from the fact that petitioner No. 1 was given admission in nursery class and promoted to higher classes. Regarding grant of free-ship it was averred by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that the certificate of SDM was never given to the school and has not even been filed with the writ petition. It was further contended that the petitioner No. 1 had been granted free-ship sometime in July, 2004 purely on humanitarian grounds on the recommendations of respondent No. 5.

16. Regarding their liability to award free-ship, it was averred that the land was not allotted by Delhi Development Authority and therefore there cannot be any condition for grant of free-ship to 20 to 25% students of the school. It was purchased by Sanatan Dharam Sabha long back in the year 1950 from the LandDO and in any case the matter pertaining to the reservation in the school on the DDA lands is also sub-judice.

17. The respondents contended that the school still gives free-ship under various categories such as meritorious students, real brothers and sisters and fatherless children and other economically backward classes. During the year 2005-2006 a sum of Rs. 13 lakh had been given as concession to students of such categories. Regarding reservation of 25% it was stated that it is not binding on the school and consequently the petitioner cannot claim any rights whatsoever. Pertaining to not granting admission to petitioner No. 1 in Class I it was asserted that petitioners never came to school for admission and the petitioner No. 2 only wants to embarrass the respondents and incite every student against the school. In order to substantiate their allegation that the petitioners never came to the school, they relied on entry register of 22nd March, 2006 showing that no entry was made by petitioner No. 2 and the petitioners kept an eye on all the developments and started protesting only after the admission of poor students was closed on 10.4.2006.

18. Regarding automatic admission of the students of S.D.Montessori School in respondent No. 4 it was averred that two are different entities having different managing committee though they are under the same parent body and all students of S.D.Montessori school do not qualify for admission to S.D.Public School. S.D.Montessori School where the son of the petitioner No. 2 was admitted is only a preparatory school which is housed in a different building having no connection with the building of S.D. public School and there is a dividing road between the two buildings and some photographs are produced to show that both the schools are separate.

19. The incident of misbehavior during the fete in December, 2005 was also stated to be not correct and it was stated that petitioner had picked up fights with the guards. The respondents produced the photographs of the Page 3033 demonstrations done by the so called 'Parent's Association' and also gave the details of concessions given by them admitting various students of the weaker sections of the society for the session 2005-2006.

20. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length on various dates. The parties also filed additional affidavit and the reply. The respondent No. 4 has denied the admission to the petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the sole purpose of petitioner No. 2 is to turn the school into a battlefield to take revenge on respondent No. 5 as petitioner No. 2 had lost the election of MCD against the respondent No. 5, manager of S.D.Public School in 2002 and therefore on 22.3.2006 he did not come with petitioner No. 1 for his admission to the school. The respondent No. 4 has not denied that school is giving freeship to deserving students on the grounds of compassion and humanity and this year out of total 240 admissions 48 students have been granted free-ship. The respondent No. 4 has also contended that it has arranged land from other sources with no condition at all neither from the DDA or any other department or any other agency regarding admission of certain number of students on a free-ship basis.

21. The emphasis of the respondents is on the fact that petitioner No. 2 did not come deliberately with his ward, petitioner No. 1, for admission to the school on 22.3.2006 as he has been raking various issues against the school right from the beginning up till now in the form of writing complaints, misbehaving, staging dharnas, organizing demonstrations by hoodlums and by forming an unlawful and fake Parent's Association. The reliance has also been placed on visitors entry register of S.D.Public School, East Patel Nagar to contend that petitioner did not visit the school.

22. Perusal of the extract of the register annexed as annexure R-4 reflects that about 25 persons visited the school from 9.20 AM till 11.55 AM. The persons who visited the school have made entries for various purposes. This has not been denied that S.D.Montessori public school where the petitioner No. 1, son of petitioner No. 2 was studying is located in the same compound which is apparent from the photograph annexed as Annexure R-7 at page 115 of the file. The said photograph shows that S.D.Montessori school is in an adjoining building where S.D.Public school, East Patel Nagar is situated. Though the emphasis has been laid by the respondents that the Managing committee of S.D.Public School where petitioner No. 1 wants admission and S.D.Montessori School where the petitioner No. 1 studied are different, however, this fact has not been denied that both are under the control of same society.

23. The petitioner No. 2 lost the municipal election in 2002 to respondent No. 5. Despite that he got his son, petitioner No. 1, admitted to S.D.Montessori Public School in 2004-2005. Even the respondent No. 5 gave admission to the petitioner No. 1 after winning the election against the petitioner No. 2. If the intention of the petitioners was to turn school premises into political battlefield and spoil the academic atmosphere of the school then petitioner No. 2 wouldn't have got his son admitted to S.D.Montessori School which is also run by the same society which is running S.D.Public School which are controlled by respondent No. 5. Apparently the genesis of problem is not the old political rivalry which appears to have been forgotten after the election in 2002.

Page 3034

24. The problem seems to have arisen when the despite the freeship granted to the petitioner No. 1 certain charges were claimed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. which seems to have led to these allegations and counter allegations.

25. The result of the petitioner No. 1 reflects that he had been promoted to class 1st. The schools are run by the same society. Merely because the management of two schools are different does not negate the connection between the two. If the petitioner No. 1 had qualified the KG class and promoted to 1st Class, the admission could not be subject to his interview and denied on any of the grounds. What was the relevance of Interview. It appears to be to eliminate those candidates whose parents are not conducive to the demands made by the respondents. If the students to KG class had been declared successful in the examination and promoted to 1st Class, their admission to the 1st Class could not be on the basis of an interview. The schools are located in the same compound and managed by the same society. Inevitable inference is that 1st Class of S.D. Public School is the continuation of KG class of S.D. Montessori School.

26. In Principal Cambridge School and Anr. v. Payal Gupta (Ms.) and Ors. the Apex Court had held that for admission of students of the same school to the next higher class would be automatic irrespective of the marks obtained. In this matter a notification was issued by the school for admission of the students of the same school to the next higher class by prescribing a cut off percentage, though the students had qualified the public examination. It was held on the basis of combined reading of Sections 16(3), 28(2)(q) and Rules 135, 137 and 138 of Delhi School Education Act and the Rules framed there under that once a student is admitted to the school, the same admission continues to class after class until the student passes the last examination for which the school gives training and no fresh admission or readmission is contemplated from one class to the other. Sub rule (1) of Rule 145 of the rules does not contemplate or require fresh admission or readmission of a student in the same school after he passes an examination from the said school. The question of an admission test or interview or the result in a particular class of a school for purpose of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in some other institution. The question of admission test on the basis of result in a particular class will not be taken into account in the case of a student of the same school who passes the public examination. In the case of petitioner No. 1 he qualified the examination conducted by the school which is also under the same society which runs the respondent No. 4. From the result card of the petitioner it is apparent that he was promoted to class 1st. If that be so on the basis of proposed interview he could not be denied admission to class 1st. The two schools are located in the same compound. Majority of the students of KG class on promotion had been admitted to class 1st of the respondent No. 4. Even the respondents have admitted that S.D. Montessori School is the preparatory school of the respondent No. 4. In the circumstances, the respondents were liable to admit petitioner No. 1 in the 1st Class of respondent No. 4.

Page 3035

27. The plea of the respondents is that petitioners did not come for admission to class 1st on 22nd March, 2006 and thereafter waited till 7th April, 2006 and thereafter have raised all these false complaints with a view to defame the school and to settle personal grudges which the petitioner No. 2 alleged to have against the respondent No. 5 on account of loosing Municipal Election in 2002. From the pleas and counter please of the parties what is to be ascertained is whether the petitioners went to respondent No. 4 for admission of petitioner No. 1 in class 1st. Respondents have relied on school's visitors register of 22nd March, 2006 to substantiate their plea that the petitioners did not come to the school. According to the respondents there would have been entry in the name of the petitioner No. 2 had he come on 22nd March, 2006 to the school for admission of petitioner No. 1.

28. The petitioners had approached S.D.Montessori School for his result on 22.3.2006. The result of the petitioner No. 1 of S.D.Montessori School has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure P-12 which reflects that the petitioner No. 1 was awarded 227 marks out of 300 marks and passed and promoted to class I. The attendance of petitioner No. 1 was also 80 out of 80 meaning that the petitioner did not miss the school even for a single day. In these circumstances since the petitioner No. 1 was promoted to class I as indicated in the assessment profile it is apparent that the Class I to which he was promoted was of S.D.Public School. Had S.D.Montessori School and S.D.Public School been different and the admission of the student of S.D.Montessori School to S.D.Public School was not automatic the endorsement on the assessment profile of the petitioner No. 1 would have been only passed because there could not be automatic promotion of the student to Class I. As already considered both the schools are in the vicinity of each other rather in the same compound and controlled by same society though managed by different management committee. If the petitioners had visited S.D.Montessori School on 22nd March, 2006 there is no apparent plausible reason for not visiting S.D. Public School where the petitioner No. 1 was to be admitted to class 1st. The respondents have produced the visitors' record register till 11.55 AM. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not contended that the admissions were made till about 12 PM and thereafter no admissions were made by S.D. Public School. This is also not the plea of the respondents that every person entering the school necessarily has to make an entry in the visitor's register.

29. In the affidavit dated 3.6.2006 the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have contended that 24 guardians out 43 visitors entered the premises of S.D. Public School on 22.3.2006 for various purposes and attended the interactive program, however, perusal of visitors register reflects that only 33 persons visited till 11.45 AM. The school has also not produced the record of other days and the students who were admitted to class I to show that all the students who were admitted to Class I had the entries made in the visitors' book of the school.

30. The petitioners has also raised a plea that the result of S.D. Public School was also declared on 22.3.2006 and it is impossible to believe that only 33 visitors visited the school when the number of students of S.D.Public School is substantially high. Respondents have produced record to show that the result days of S.D.Public School were 18th and 28th March, 2006 for senior Page 3036 classes and for 1st to VIIIth Classes respectively. Even if 22.3.2006 was not the result day of S.D.Public School. Considering the record produced by the respondents it is not a plausible inference that all the persons who were admitted to Class 1st of S.D.Public School had made entries in the visitor book on that day or on subsequent dates. As far as the plea of the respondent that the petitioners did not visit the school between 22.3.2006 to 7.4.2006 it is more probable in the facts and circumstances that the petitioners had visited the school on 22.3.2006 and remained under the bonafide impression that since the petitioner No. 1 has been promoted to Class I which is apparent from the assessment profile, there was no need for the petitioners to visit the school again. The petitioners were communicated that the admission will not be given to the petitioner No. 1 in free quota of weaker section of society which prompted petitioner No. 2 to sent a representation to the Deputy Education officer.

31. The respondents have also denied that the petitioner No. 2 is entitled for admission of his child, petitioner No. 1 in the freeship quota. The petitioner No. 2, however, has produced an income certificate of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 19.4.2001, annexure P-1 that the income from all sources of petitioner No. 2 appears to be Rs. 28,500/- per annum. The emphasis of the respondents is that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for admission as he did not visit the school on 22.3.2006. If the probable inference is that the petitioner No. 1 visited the school on 22.3.2006 then the plea of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for admission under the freeship quota category, by denying the certificate of SDM produced by the petitioners, can not be accepted. The respondents themselves had granted freeship to the petitioner No. 1 in or about 2004 as has been contended by them in the reply filed on their behalf. If that be so, the respondents could not deny admission in freeship quota merely by denying the certificate issued by the SDM and not alleging any other facts e.g change of financial condition of the petitioner No. 2. Denying SDM certificate and thus denying freeship quota to the petitioner No. 1 is an after thought.

32. The director of Education pursuant to the directions given in CWP No. 3156/2002 to frame appropriate rules to ensure that children of weaker sections of the society are given freeship in recognized unaided school passed the order No. PS/DE/2004/10496-11595 dated 27.4.2004 directing all the recognized unaided schools to grant freeship to the children of economically weaker sections in such schools pursuant to the power conferred under Section 3(1) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with Rule 43 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. Under the said order all the schools are to grant minimum 20% freeship, that is while making admission every 5th student is to be admitted from weaker section of the society. For freeship the annual parental income was limited to Rs. 48,000/- for boys student and Rs. 60,000/- for the girl student. The petitioner No. 2 had produced an income certificate dated 19.4.2005 issued by K.K.Sharma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patel Nagar verifying that the annual income of the petitioner No. 2 appears to be Rs. 28,500/-. This order issued by the Director of Education has not been challenged by the school nor it is under challenge in any other proceedings as no such Page 3037 challenge has been brought to my notice. The copy of this order was filed by the petitioner to refute the averments made by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their reply dated 15.4.2006. In reply dated 15.4.2006 the emphasis of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was that petitioners did not come on 22.3.2006 to get admission of petitioner No. 1 to first class of S.D. Public School. However, after the reply dated 5.5.2006 was filed by the petitioners an additional affidavit dated 26.5.2006 was filed contending that the petitioner No. 2 cannot insist for admission of petitioner No. 1 in S.D. Public School as there are number of other schools on the way from the residence of the petitioners to the school of the respondent No. 4, S.D. Public School. Along with the additional affidavit dated 26.5.2006 the respondent also filed a communication from Ms. Poonam Wadhwa, mother of a deceased student withdrawing any blame made against the school and a complaint from the in charge of S.D.Montessori School against the petitioner No. 2 regarding the alleged weird remarks passed by him. Thereafter yet another affidavit was filed by the respondents contending that no other guardian/student attended the interactive interview on 22.3.2006 except those who entered in the visitors book at the gate of respondent No. 4 school. Thus emphasizing again that the petitioners did not come on 22.3.2006.

33. The allegations made by the respondents in their affidavit dated 3.6.2006/1.7.2006 were refuted by a reply affidavit dated 4.7.2006 filed by the petitioners specifically contending that there was no reason for the petitioner who had come to 22.3.2006 to collect the assessment profile of petitioner No. 1 from S.D.Montessori School, not to come to S.D. Public School which is in the same compound. It was categorically contended by them that the entire record has not been produced by the respondents to show as to which students were admitted in the first class on which dates and whether their guardians made entries in the school register on the different dates.

34. Yet another affidavit dated 11.7.2006 was filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to contend that the matter pertaining to giving freeship to economically backward students is still subjudiced and there are three categories of schools for freeship. One which have been allotted land by DDA with conditions; second category where the schools have been allotted land by DDA with no conditions and the third category where the schools have been allotted land from other sources with no condition at all either from department or any other agency. It was contended by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that since S.D. Public school falls under the third category it is not obligatory to give freeship, however, respondent school on the ground of compassion and humanity is giving freeship to deserving students and in 2006 out of total 240 admissions, 48 students have been granted freeship.

35. Perusal of different affidavits filed by the respondents reflect a gradual change in the stand of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to somehow justify not granting admission to petitioner No. 1 in respondent No. 4 school. The plea raised in the additional affidavit dated 11.7.2006 also seem to be contrary to the order dated 27.4.2004 of Director of Education.

36. The respondents have not denied that the freeship was granted to the petitioner No. 1 in 2004 The order dated 27.4.2004 fixing 20% freeship is applicable to all the recognized unaided schools and no such Page 3038 category as has been alleged by the respondents be culled from the said order. The said order dated 27.4.2004 rather categorically stipulates that no school shall be entitled to withdraw any exemption from the payment of fees etc granted to any student belonging to weaker sections of the society without prior approval of the director. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 27.4.2004 is as under:

9:- No school shall withdraw any exemption from the payment of fees etc granted to any student belonging to the weaker section of the society without prior approval of the director.

If that be so the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 now cannot contend that it is their absolute discretion to grant or not to grant freeship and to whom grant such freeship pursuant to order dated 27.4.2004 The inevitable inference in the facts and circumstances is that the petitioner No. 1 is entitled to freeship which was granted to him by the school while studying in nursery and KG class and such freeship could not be withdrawn by the school for grant of admission to the first class in S.D. Public School. It is apparent in the facts and circumstances that the admission to petitioner No. 1 is denied only to avoid granting freeship to him. If the freeship granted to the petitioner No. 1 could not be withdrawn without prior approval of the director the same cannot be allowed to be achieved by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by alleging that petitioners did not come to the school for admission of petitioner No. l on 22.3.2006.

37. A boy student whose annual parental income is Rs. 40,000/- is entitled for freeship whereas the petitioner No. 2 has produced a certificate showing his annual income to be Rs. 28,500/- only. The certificate issued by the SDM cannot be negated or overlooked merely on account of being denied by the respondents. The plea of the respondents that the father of the petitioner No. 2 contested the election and is having a business also are not sufficient to rebut and negate the SDM certificate produced by the petitioner No. 2 in support of entitlement of his son for grant of freeship.

38. In the facts and circumstances the probable inference is that the petitioner No. 2, father of petitioner No. 1 protested and objected to the various charges claimed by the respondents despite free education granted to him for which the petitioner No. 1 was entitled pursuant to the order dated 27.4.2004 which has led to this episode where the petitioner No. 1 has been denied admission by respondent No. 4 on the ground that he did not come to the school on 22.3.2006 for getting admission to class Ist. The version of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is highly improbable and the attempt by them to improve their pleas in different replies and affidavits filed by them unequivocally reflects their attempts to decline admission to petitioner No. 1 on one or other grounds and thus avoid freeship.

39. Considering the facts and in totality of circumstances rule is made absolute and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to admit petitioner No. 1 in class 1st in accordance with rules and regulations in S.D. Public school and grant him freeship as contemplated under order dated 27.4.2004 of Director of Education forthwith. The petitioner No. 1 shall also be entitled for relaxation of the last date of admission, if any, to the 1st class of S.D.Public School. However, in the facts and circumstances the parties are left to bear their own cost.