Rita Sen, Principal, Delhi Public ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 699 Del

*          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

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

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

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