Delhi High Court
Karan Raj Singh (Minor) Through ... vs Department Of Education, Govt. Of ... on 24 January, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4982/2011 and CMs 10094/2011 & 11552/2011
Reserved on: 06.01.2012
Date of decision: 24.01.2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
KARAN RAJ SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN
SH. S.K. SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vandana Bhatia, Advocate
versus
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for
R-1 and R-3 with Ms. Asha Monga, EO-14,
Department of Education.
Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-2/CBSE.
Mr. Abhijat, Advocate for R-4/School.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner through his
father as his natural guardian, seeking directions to respondent
No.4/School to allow him to attend and pursue his course in Non-Medical
Science Stream with Computers in class XI in which he claims to have got
admission on 14.06.2011.
2. The facts of the case which lie in a narrow compass are that
the petitioner, a student studying in respondent No.4/School, passed
class X in June 2011 through respondent No.2/Central Board of Secondary
Education (in short „CBSE'), where he secured Grade B2. On 14.06.2011,
he was admitted to the class XI in the Non-Medical Science Stream with
Computers. It is the case of the petitioner that prior thereto, respondent
No.4/School had conducted a Students Global Aptitude Index Test and on
the basis of the said aptitude test and considering his mark-sheet, as
declared by respondent No.2/CBSE for class X, he opted for Non-Medical
Science Stream with Computers. After counselling, respondent
No.4/School confirmed the admission of the petitioner in Class XI in the
Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers. On 14.06.2011, the parents
of the petitioner deposited a fee of `28,570/- as demanded by respondent
No.4/School. However, on 01.07.2011, when the petitioner went to
school, he was informed that he would not be permitted to attend classes
in the Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers and instead, he was
directed to attend classes in the Commerce Stream. It is averred in the
writ petition that when the father of the petitioner contacted the school
authorities, he was informed that respondent No.4/School had raised the
merit of the Science Stream, due to which the petitioner could not be
admitted in the Science Group and he could only be allowed to attend
classes in the Commerce Stream. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner
lodged a complaint with respondent No.2/CBSE vide letter dated
02.07.2011 and with respondent No.3/Dy. Director of Education (West),
vide letter dated 11.07.2011. However, as no action was taken by the
said Departments, the present writ petition was filed on 14.07.2011.
3. Vide order dated 18.07.2011, notice was issued in the writ
petition and as an interim measure, respondent No.4/School was directed
to allow the petitioner to attend his classes in the Non-Medical Science
Stream with Computers, in which he was admitted on 14.06.2011.
Counsel for respondent No.2/CBSE, who appeared on advance copy,
informed the Court that instructions had been issued by respondent
No.2/CBSE to all schools not to force the students to change their streams
in class XI after grant of admission to one stream and in support of the
said submission, learned counsel relied upon the circulars dated
30.03.2006 and 20.06.2007 issued by respondent No.2/CBSE. On
12.09.2011, it was clarified that the interim protection granted in favour
of the petitioner would not result in any special equity flowing in his
favour.
4. In response to the aforesaid petition, the stand taken by
respondent No.4/School was that respondent No.2/CBSE has laid down a
standard admission procedure to be followed by all schools affiliated to
the said Board, and that the said system was being scrupulously followed
by the school. As per the grading system adopted for class IX and X used
for evaluation of the performance of students, assessment was required
to be done by using conventional numerical marking mode and then
converting the same into grades on the basis of pre-determined marks
ranges. To explain the said procedure, learned counsel for respondent
No.4/School referred to the Scheme of Examination Reforms and
Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (in short „CCE‟), circulated by
respondent No.2/CBSE vide circular dated 20.09.2009. It was submitted
on behalf of respondent No.4/School that an optional aptitude test
alongwith other school records and the CCE would help the students,
parents and the teachers in deciding the choice of subjects for class XI
and for the purpose of admission in class XI, the CCE certificate would be
relied upon. Furthermore, it was stated that the aptitude test, scholastic
performance and co-scholastic achievements of a student, all put together
would be required to be given weightage by the school for allotting
subjects in class XI. Thus, it was averred that every student is given a
Cumulative Grade Point Average (in short „ÇGPA‟) and subject-wise
Grade Point (in short „GP‟) and that in order to get admission in class XI,
both CGPA and subject-wise GP are considered. Initially, the admission is
based on CGPA and in case of two or more students with equal CGPA,
their inter se merit is determined through subject-wise GP. Reference was
made to the aforesaid circular dated 20.9.2009 issued by respondent
No.2/CBSE to state that the said circular stipulates that for the science
based course, candidates were required to obtain higher CGPA in one
compulsory language, mathematics and science.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/School explained that
based on the aforesaid prescribed procedure as laid down by respondent
No.2/CBSE for the purposes of fixing cut-off points for admission to
various streams, the school conducts an elaborate exercise, whereafter a
list of eligible students is released. He adverted to the circular dated
06.07.2010 issued by the Principal of respondent No.4/School which
informed that the admission to class XI (2011-12) would be on the basis
of the result of the students based on a point system converted into grade
points (Annexure B to CM 11552/2011). It was submitted that after
following the aforesaid procedure, respondent No.4/School had prepared
three separate lists and all the 76 seats available in the Science Stream of
class XI were filled up by following the aforesaid procedure. Learned
counsel stated that the name of the petitioner did not feature in the
aforesaid list simply for the reason that he did not qualify the requisite
Grade Points for being eligible for admission in the Non-Medical Science
Stream with Computers in class XI. To buttress the said submission,
reference was made to a final list of students admitted in class XI
(Academic year 2011-12) alongwith a list showing allocation of the stream
to each student, as filed on record. In the said list, the name of the
petitioner features at Sr.No.109 and in the last column, where the stream
is mentioned, the same is written as "C1/H1/C2/H2". The list reveals that
the petitioner had scored GP 6.6 in English, GP 8.1 in Mathematics and GP
5.8 in Science, while the lowest minimum criteria as per the relevant
circular dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure-D to CM 11552/2011) required a
score of GP 5.2 in English, GP 7.0 in Mathematics and GP 6.7 in Science.
6. Thus, it was stated by learned counsel for respondent
No.4/School that the petitioner had scored far less than the required GP
in the subject of science, in which the cut-off GP was 6.7. He further
pointed out that the petitioner was also given a relaxation of GP 0.2, as
he had represented the school in sports and despite the above, the only
reason for allocating Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers to the
petitioner was on account of a bona fide inadvertence on the part of the
teacher incharge, who, instead of taking into consideration the petitioner‟s
GP for science, which was 5.8, inadvertently, took into consideration his
GP in English, which was 6.6 and after granting him a relaxation of GP 0.2
on the basis of his having represented the school in sports, allotted him
Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers under a mistaken impression
that he had scored GP 6.8 in science. In support of the said submission,
reliance was also placed on the admission performa of the petitioner filed
by respondent No.4/School under the index dated 05.12.2011.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/School urged that the
petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria for admission in
Science Stream having scored GP 5.8 in Science subject in his class X
examination, which was well below the settled cut off GP 6.7 in Science
Stream and even after granting GP 0.2 on account of sports relaxation, he
admittedly did not fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down by the school. He
further submitted that the aforesaid erroneous admission of the petitioner
in the Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers was duly conveyed to
his mother as early as on 17.06.2011, when the teacher incharge, upon
cross checking the admissions, discovered the same and again on the
next date, i.e., on 18.06.2011, when she visited the school and was
categorically informed that her son was eligible to be admitted in
Commerce Stream with Mathematics and not in the Non-Medical Science
Stream with Computers. As regards the circulars dated 30.3.2006 and
20.6.2007, which mandate that students should not be forced by schools
to change their subject/stream in class XI after class X results are
announced, from science subject to commerce or humanity subject,
counsel for respondent No.4/School submitted that this is not a case of a
nature where the petitioner was being forced by the school to change his
subject/stream. Rather, it was a case of mistaken admission in the wrong
stream, which had been corrected by respondent No.4/School at the
earliest given opportunity and it was not a case where the school had any
malice towards the petitioner. It was also stated that as far as deposit of
fee for the Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers is concerned, the
school is ready and willing to refund/adjust the excess fee deposited by
the petitioner and also give him special coaching classes in the Commerce
Stream with Maths to make up the loss of the academic months.
8. In the rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
averments made in the writ petition and denied the fact that the
petitioner was admitted in class XI in the Non-Medical Science Stream
with Computers on account of any human error/mistake/inadvertence as
claimed by respondent No.4/School or that the same was informed to the
mother of the petitioner as early as on 17/18.06.2011. It was further
stated that respondent No.4/School had not informed the parents of the
petitioner about the aforesaid error either verbally or in writing and that
though a legal notice dated 02.07.2011 was issued by the counsel for the
petitioner to respondent No.4/School asking it to inform the parents of
the petitioner as to why he was not being permitted to attend classes in
the Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers, where his admission
had been confirmed, the school did not choose to respond to the said
notice. It was contended that once he had been admitted in the said
stream, respondent No.4/School could not be permitted to act in such an
arbitrary fashion by denying admission to the petitioner in the Non-
Medical Science Stream with Computers. Counsel for the petitioner stated
that the Grade Points scored by the petitioner in the CBSE class X results
in the subjects of science and social science were GP 7 each and she
particularly relied upon his score card of CBSE Students Global Aptitude
Index undertaken by him to urge that as per the said test, the aptitude of
the petitioner was recorded as below:-
"Teacher‟s observation in order of hierarchy on the
basis of free and voluntary response given by the
student of Aptitude and Interest.
Interest profile: a. Science
b. Maths
c. Behavioral Science
Aptitudes indicated: a. Social Science
b. Maths
c. Science
The score card is only indicative of the Student‟s
preferences. The result may be taken as a
„facilitator‟ only. The level of mental preparedness
and sincerity of the student at the time of attempting
the test may affect the score.
It is expected that the SGAI Score will empower the
student to make a wise selection of subjects to be
taken up in class XI".
9. This Court has perused the case file, taken into consideration
the submissions made by the learned counsels and carefully examined all
the relevant documents placed on record.
10. The facts of the case are undisputed. It has not been denied
by respondent No.4/School that at the time of his admission to class XI ,
the petitioner was granted admission in the Non-Medical Science Stream
with Computers. It is also undisputed that respondent No.2/CBSE does
not lay down the admission criteria for students when they take admission
to class XI after clearing class X and that each school lays down its own
norms for the said purpose. However, it is considered necessary to test
the explanation offered by respondent No.4/School for granting admission
to the petitioner in the Non-Medical Science stream, which is that this
happened due to a genuine error on the part of the teacher incharge, who
instead of taking into consideration his GP in science, inadvertently, took
into consideration his GP in English and further, after granting him
relaxation of GP 0.2, allotted to the petitioner, Non-Medical Science
stream with Computers under a mistaken impression that he had scored
GP 6.8 in Science, as against the cut-off fixed by the school which was
GP 6.7.
11. It is settled law that Courts should ordinarily refrain from
interfering with matters relating to the internal working of schools,
colleges and other educational institutions for the reason that the
decisions taken by such academic bodies are largely in the nature of
policy decisions and the rules and regulations made by the institutions are
based on their day to day experience. As long as such a
decision/rule/regulation is on the face of it unreasonable, arbitrary or in
violation of the principles of natural justice, the Courts ought not to
interfere therein as every institution has a right to set its own benchmark
for achieving academic excellence. Providing standards of admission by
laying down eligibility criteria is in consonance with the object of
promoting excellence in academics and the object of fixing an eligibility
criteria is not only to maintain such standards of excellence in an
academic institution, but also to enable institutions to shortlist applicants
for admission where there are more applicants and less seats available.
12. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaraya
Technological University and Anr. Vs. Krishnendu Halder and Ors.
reported as (2011) 4 SC 606, the object of providing eligibility criteria is
to ensure maintenance of excellence in standards of education and not to
fill up all the seats. Reducing the standards to fill the seats was observed
to be a dangerous trend that would lead to destruction of the quality of
education. It was held that determination of such standards being part of
the academic policy of an educational institution, are ordinarily beyond
the purview of judicial review. On similar lines was the decision of a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Bharti Vs. Ritnand
Balved Education Foundation reported as MANU/DE/0024/2005, wherein it
was held that educational institutions are the best judges to impose
appropriate restrictions and conditions and merely because the conditions
imposed were found to be inconvenient to some students, could not be a
ground to lay a challenge to the same as being arbitrary.
13. In a recent decision of another Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Independent Schools‟ Federation of India (Regd.) Vs. Central
Board of Secondary Education and Anr. reported as 183 (2011) DLT
211, it has been reiterated that Courts are not experts to judge the
decisions that have been arrived at by the educational bodies and experts
and the same are policy decisions with which the Courts should be slow to
interfere for the reason that opinions are expressed by the experts who
are more acquainted and familiar with the problems.
14. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddharth
Kaul & Orvs. Vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University reported as
MANU/DE/6677/2011 opined that a university/academic body is always
entitled to set a higher benchmark and students cannot be permitted to
decide the academic policy or seek change thereof to enable them to
overcome their deficiencies and further that mere payment of fee would
not create any right in favour of the students.
15. In the present case, respondent No.4/School formulated a
criteria for filling up seats in the subject streams in a particular manner
and the criteria for allocation of Science Stream in Class XI(2011-12) was
fixed in the following manner:-
SUBJECT STREAM ENGLISH MATHEMATICS SCIENCE
SCIENCE WITH MATH A1, A2, B1, A1, A2, B1, B2, A1, A2, B1, B2
ENG, PHY, CHEM, MATH + B2, C1 (Grade (Grade Point 7.0) (up till Grade
ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: Point 5.2) Point 6.7)
COMPUTERS(C++)/ECONOMICS/BIOLOGY
(PHYSICAL EDUCATION MAY BE OPTED
AS 6TH SUJECT)
SCIENCE WITHOUT MATH A1, A2, B1, A1, A2, B1, B2 A1, A2, B1, B2
ENG, PHY, CHEM, BIO+ B2, C1 (Grade (Grade Point 6.2) (up till Grade
ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: Point 5.2) Point 6.7)
COMPUTERS(C++)/PHYSICAL
EDUCATION
16. The petitioner‟s class X examination results 2011, as declared
by respondent No.2/CBSE under the CCE scheme reflected his academic
performance as below:-
"Part 1 - Scholastic Areas
Part 1A - Academic Performance:
Subject FA SA TOTAL GP
086 SCIENCE C1 C1 B2** 07
087 SOCIAL SCIENCE B2 C1 B2** 07
CGPA 7.4
Part 1B Grade
500 -WORK EXPERIENCE B+
501 -ART EDUCATION B+
502 -PHY & HEALTH EDUCA. B+
Part 2 Co-Scholastic Area:
Part 2A - Life Skills Grade Part 2B - Attitude and Values Grade
Towards
511 THINKING A 521 TEACHERS A+
SKILLS
512 SOCIAL SKILLS A 522 SCHOOL-MATES A+
513 EMOTIONAL A 523 SCHOOL PROGRAMMES A+
SKILLS
524 ENVIRONMENT A
525 VALUE SYSTEM A
Part 3 Co-Scholastic Areas
Part 3A-Co-Scholastic Grade Part 3B-Phy. & Health Edu. Grade
Activities
531 LITERARY & CREATIV A 541 SPORTS A+
532 SCIENCE & ICI S A 548 GARDENING/SHRAMDAN A
Result: QUAL
** - Upgraded Grade by one level"
17. A perusal of the aforesaid examination results of the
petitioner read with the footnote reveals that GP 7, the Grade Points
scored by the petitioner in both the subjects, i.e., science and social
science was arrived at by converting the Cumulative Grade Point Average
(CGPA) into subject-wise Grade Points. In the case of the petitioner, his
cumulative average point in science subject as also social science subject
were B2**. The two stars suffixed to Grade B2 have been explained in
the foot note as upgradation by one level. In other words, GP 7 assigned
to the petitioner for the subjects of science and social science were on the
basis of upgradation by one level and that they were not the actual grade
points scored by him. Further, the analysis sheet of the result of the
petitioner for class IX and X placed on record by respondent No.4/School
reveals that he had scored GP 5.8 in Science, and GP 6 in Social Science,
i.e., Grade C1 in both subjects. In the last column of the said analysis
sheet, the stream allocated to the petitioner has been clearly reflected as
"C1/H1/C2/H2". Furthermore, a perusal of the entire list of allocation of
streams in respect of class X students in respondent No.4/School shows
that none of the students, who had been allotted Science stream, had
scored marks that were below the cut-off GP 6.7, which was the minimum
eligibility criteria fixed by respondent No.4/School for allocation of Science
stream with Maths.
18. It is also pertinent to refer to the document enclosed by
respondent No.4/school as annexure E to CM 11552/2011, which is a
tabulation of the Grade Points obtained by all the 76 students, who have
been admitted to Science stream. The said tabulation shows that the last
four students at serials No.73 to 76, had scored GP 6.7, which was fixed
as the cut off Grade Point. Another relevant point to note is that the
results of the petitioner as reflected in the collective analysis sheet of the
students to be promoted from class X to class XI tallies with the results
reflected in the admission form of the petitioner, where the stream
allocated to him has been shown as "C1/H1/C2/H2" and the stream
chosen is shown as "S1+ C++". A bare perusal of his admission form
shows that the petitioner had been allocated stream "C1/H1/C2/H2" and
not "S1", which was only reflected as his stream of choice. However, at
the bottom of the petitioner‟s admission form, which bears his signature
as also that of his father‟s, there is an endorsement made by the teacher
incharge showing "S1" within a circle alongwith a remark, "sports quota".
The same bears the date, 14.6.2011 on the top right side.
19. Having regard to the aforesaid documents placed on record by
the respondent No.4/School, this Court finds force in the submission of
learned counsel for respondent No.4/School that allocation of Non-Medical
Science Stream with Computers to the petitioner was on account of
inadvertence on the part of the teacher incharge, who remained under a
mistaken impression that he had scored GP 6.6 in Science subject,
whereas he had actually scored GP 5.8 in the said subject and GP 6.6 in
English. Then she went on to consider his GP in English and by adding to
it GP 0.2 on account of sports relaxation granted to him, allocated him
Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers. The documents reveal that
the petitioner was ineligible for being admitted to Non-Medical Science
Stream with Computers having scored GP 5.8 in Science subject in class X
examinations, which is well below the cut off of GP 6.7 for the Science
stream fixed by the school as an eligibility condition. Even if the benefit of
GP 0.2 relaxation under the sports category is granted to the petitioner,
he would not make the grade as his score would tally to GP 6, which is
still well below the cut off GP 6.7 required in Science Stream.
20. It is also pertinent to note that in the writ petition, the stand
taken by the petitioner was that respondent No.4/School had changed the
admission parameters after receiving the fee from him and that he was
granted admission in Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers as per
the prevalent rules and norms determined by respondent No.4/School.
The aforesaid submission is however not borne out from the records as it
is noticed that there has been no change by way of dilution/upgradation
of the eligibility criteria prescribed by respondent No.4/School for
assigning different streams and having scrutinized the records pertaining
to the other students, belonging to the same batch as the petitioner who
were found eligible, and were assigned Science stream, there is no
discernable disparity, discrimination or arbitrariness exercised by the
respondent No.4/School. Thus the petitioner has not been able to
substantiate his claim that the admission parameters were sought to be
raised by respondent No.4/School after his admission to class XI in the
Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers.
21. In the course of arguments, much emphasis was laid by
learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that on the basis of an
interim order passed on 18.07.2011, the petitioner was permitted to
continue attending classes in the Non-Medical Science Stream with
Computers and while deciding the present petition, the Court may not
lose sight of the fact that six months have passed ever since then. It was
canvassed that the petitioner had been performing very well in the Non-
Medical Science Stream with Computers and that he ought not to be
disturbed midstream.
22. Conscious of the fact that disturbing a student in midstream
could have serious consequences for him and his academic career, it was
deemed expedient to pass an order on 02.11.2011 calling upon counsel
for respondent No.4/School to place on record the result of the internal
assessment of the petitioner for the past six months. On the aforesaid
date, the father of the petitioner was present and he was also requested
to objectively assess his son‟s academic progress and revert back to the
Court. Respondent No.4/School filed the results of the petitioner for Unit
Test-1 under index dated 05.12.2011 and on 03.01.2012 the school filed
the collective results of the petitioner with respect to Unit Test-1 and 2.
The academic performance of the petitioner in Unit Test-1 and Unit Test-2
are as below:-
Unit Test -1
SUBJECT UNIT TEST-1 THEORY PRACTICAL TH.+PRAC.(100) TOTAL
(25) (125)
ENGLISH 10.0 37.5 37.5 47.5
MATHS 16.0 27.5 27.5 43.5
PHYSICS 3.0 16.5 21.0 37.5 40.5
CHEMISTRY 0.5 11.0 13.5 24.5 25.0
COMPUTER 10.0 9.5 11.0 20.5 30.5
GRAND TOTAL (625) 187.0
Unit Test-2
DATE OF EXAM SUBJECT UNIT TEST-2 DATE OF MARKS (25)
(25) RETEST EXAM
14-11-2011 ENGLISH 11.5
23. The aforesaid academic performance of the petitioner reveals
that while he faired well in the subjects of English, Mathematics and
Physics in Unit Test-1, the marks scored by him in the subject of
Chemistry was 25 and in Computer was 30.5, as against the pass marks
of 42.5 out of 100 in each subject. As regards the result of Unit Test-2,
the petitioner scored 11.5 in English, 16 in Mathematics and 8 in Physics
out of 25 marks in each subject and he absented himself in the said unit
test held for Chemistry and Computers on 05.12.2011 and 12.12.2011,
respectively. Upon a re-test conducted for the petitioner on 24.12.2011
for Chemistry and on 27.12.2011 for Computers, he scored 6 marks in
Chemistry and „Nil‟ in Computer, against the pass marks of 8.5 out of 25.
24. Having perused the aforesaid results of the petitioner, which
showed a remarkable decline in his academic performance in the first
quarter, vide order dated 07.12.2011, the Court required the presence of
the petitioner and his father, so as to interact with them. On 19.12.2011
and 21.12.2011, the Court took pains to explain to both, the petitioner
and his father fact that the academic career of the student ought to be
given primacy and loss of objectivity while assessing his performance
would jeopardize his further studies. It was also pointed out that the
performance of the petitioner in the Non-Medical Science Stream with
Computers did not bode well for him and any insistence on his carrying on
his studies in the said stream would result in sacrificing his future
prospects at the alter of his parent‟s obduracy. While requesting the
father of the petitioner to carefully weigh his options by keeping in mind
the performance of the petitioner for the past six months, the matter was
adjourned. Despite the aforesaid fact, on the next date of hearing, the
petitioner and his parents did not turn up, nor did they convey their
decision through their counsel. Instead, on 6.1.2012, the counsel for the
petitioner stated that she had instructions to argue the matter on merits.
25. The Court is quite mindful of the fact that a matter like the
present one ought not to be treated as an adversarial litigation. The
focus has to be only on the petitioner and his academic progress in the
light of the extant rules and regulations. There is no place for pampering
false egoes or assuaging hurt sentiments of either the parents of the
petitioner or the respondent No.4/School. It must be remembered that
these are the crucial formative years of the petitioner and his academic
progress as a student shall lay the foundation for his higher studies which
shall finally be the springboard for his career progression. In such
circumstances, the insistence that the petitioner should continue in the
Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers, in the face of his adverse
academic performance for the past six months, may end in playing havoc
with his future. Instead, if he switches to the Commerce stream with
Maths even now, the result would be that while one door may close,
another door shall open where the petitioner‟s skill in the subjects of his
choice, i.e., Maths and English, in which he has performed well, shall be
put to good use and be further enhanced in the Commerce Stream.
26. The merits of the case have already been discussed. The
same clearly bring out the fact that not only was the petitioner ineligible
for being admitted to the Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers in
terms of the eligibility criteria laid down by respondent No.4/school, but
even after he had been attending classes in the said stream on the
strength of the interim order passed on 18.07.2011, he had not been able
to perform well in the subjects of physics and chemistry, as is clearly
reflected from his results of Unit Test-1 and Unit Test-2.
27. The petitioner and his counsel ought to have realized that
having regard to the sensitivity and urgency of the matter, it was not one
which could have brooked any delay. Instead, a perusal of the order
sheets clearly reveal that the counsel for the petitioner has been dragging
his feet throughout the proceedings. When the interim order was granted
in favour of the petitioner on 18.07.2011, the matter was adjourned to
25.08.2011. However, much before 25.8.2011, on 08.08.2011 the
respondent No.4/school filed an application for vacation of the stay
orders, registered as CM 11552/2011. Though advance copy of the said
application was duly served on the counsel for the petitioner, he did not
appear on 08.08.2011. Resultantly, notice was issued on the application,
returnable for the date fixed, i.e., 25.08.2011, when counsel for the
petitioner appeared and sought time to file a reply. The case was then
adjourned to 12.09.2011, on which date further time was sought by
counsel for the petitioner to file the reply affidavit. For the next two
dates, i.e., 28.09.2011 and 02.11.2011, counsel for the petitioner did not
turn up. He again absented himself on 09.12.2011 and 21.12.2011 and
the matter was argued on 06.01.2012 at the insistence of the Court. This
leaves the court with a distinct impression that attempts were being made
on the part of the petitioner and the counsel to avoid addressing
arguments and use dilatory tactics to prolong the proceedings, so that the
academic year may come to an end in a few more months and
consequently, the petition be rendered infructuous.
28. It is also relevant to note that the error committed by the
concerned teacher incharge of respondent No.4/School was brought to
the knowledge of the parents of the petitioner within a reasonable time of
his admission, which is apparent from the fact that even as per the
petitioner, he was admitted to class XI in the Non-Medical Science Stream
with Computers on 14.06.2011, and assuming that the school did not
convey the said error committed by the teacher incharge on
17/18.06.2011 as claimed by the school and did so only on 01.07.2011,
when he was not permitted to attend the said classes and instead, was
called upon to attend classes in Commerce stream, the time line between
the admission of the petitioner to the Non-Medical Science Stream and
intimation to him to go to attend classes in Commerce Stream was only
two weeks.
29. Even otherwise, upon a perusal of the admission form of the
petitioner and the computation of his analysis sheet when compared with
his other classmates as placed on record, the inevitable conclusion is that
the stream allocated to the petitioner was not "Science", but
"C1/H1/C2/H2". Further, the results of the petitioner in Unit Test 1 and
Unit Test 2 held in the last six months have also not been encouraging
and portend an uncertain future for him in the Non-Medical Science
Stream. The CBSE Students Global Aptitude Test was also an indicator of
the aptitude of the petitioner, which was inclined towards Social Science
as a first choice, followed by Maths and lastly, Science.
30. It is not a case where the petitioner has alleged any malafides
against respondent No.4/School. Nor has the claim of the petitioner that
the school has adopted a pick and choose policy or that he has been
arbitrarily discriminated against, been substantiated. On the basis of the
documents placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the admission of
the petitioner in the Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers was
purely on account of an error on the part of the teacher incharge. In the
course of arguments, counsel for respondent No.4/School had informed
the Court that an explanation had already been called for from the
concerned teacher and in this regard, he had relied upon letters dated
04.07.2011 and 01.08.2011 addressed to the said teacher, copies of
which were taken on record. It was submitted that no action was
required to be initiated against the said teacher as she was on contractual
appointment and had tendered her resignation to the School on
17.09.2011, which had been duly accepted.
31. It is relevant to note that the Circulars dated 30.03.2006 and
20.06.2007 issued by respondent No.2/CBSE as referred to in the order
dated 18.07.2011 are not applicable to the case in hand for the reason
that it is not a case where the respondent No.4/School had forced the
petitioner to change his subject after the announcement of the results of
class X; rather, the admission of the petitioner in Science stream was
sought to be cancelled for the reason that he did not meet the eligibility
criteria laid down by the school and applied uniformly to all the students
of his batch without any upward or downward revision. Further, mere
payment of school fee for the Non Science Maths stream with Computer
would not create a vested right in favour of the petitioner.
32. The question, which remains to be decided is the manner in
which the relief is to be moulded. The Court is conscious of the fact that
the petitioner would face some difficulty in coping up with the rest of his
class in the Commerce stream as almost half an academic year has
already passed. It is also conscious of the fact that the initial blame lies
at the door of respondent No.4/School in not being vigilant enough to
have carefully scrutinized and cross checked the analysis sheet of the
students as also the admission form of all the students including the
petitioner before allocating the subject stream to them. At the same
time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the said oversight was
brought to the knowledge of the petitioner/his parents on 01.07.2011,
i.e., within a period of two weeks if reckoned from 14.06.2011, the date
of his admission to class XI and that the petitioner has been continuing to
attend his classes in the Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers on
the strength of an interim order dated 18.07.2011 and vide order dated
12.09.2011, it was further clarified that no special equity would flow in his
favour due to the aforesaid interim order. Therefore, merely because
the petitioner has continued to study in the Non-Medical Science Stream
with Computers in class XI for the past six months, cannot be the sole
consideration that ought to weigh with the Court while deciding the
present case. Even if the eligibility criteria laid down by respondent
No.4/School for admission to the Non-Medical Science Stream with
Computers in class XI, which has been uniformly been applied to all the
students in the said batch is over looked, the academic performance of
the petitioner for the past six months has to be taken into consideration.
33. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed
appropriate to decline the relief sought in the present petition and vacate
the interim orders. The respondent No.4/school is directed to permit the
petitioner to start attending classes in the Commerce stream with Maths
in class XI, in terms of the stream allocated to him as per his eligibility,
based on his performance in class X, as early as possible. Taking into
consideration the role of respondent No.4/School and the lack of due
diligence displayed by it, while allocating the subject stream to the
petitioner, it is further deemed expedient to balance the equities by
issuing the following directions for compliance:-
(a) Respondent No.4/School shall not claim any fee from the
petitioner for the past six months and adjust the fee already
deposited by him towards the fee that shall be payable for the
next six months.
(b) Respondent No.4/School shall make good the loss of classes in
the Commerce stream suffered by the petitioner, by giving him
special coaching classes without burdening him/his parents with
any additional fee for the same.
(c) Further, respondent No.4/School shall bear the burden of all the
expenses, to be incurred by the petitioner/his parents in buying
a second set of books and study material for the allocated
subject stream, and reimburse them on the basis of the bills
produced by them.
(d) Respondent No.4/School shall give the petitioner the benefit of
his attendance by including the classes attended by him in the
Non-Medical Science Stream with Computers.
(e) Respondent No.4/School shall take into consideration, the results
of Unit Test-1 and Unit Test-2 undertaken by the petitioner while
carrying out an analysis of his results at the end of class XI. If
considered necessary, a reasonable relaxation may also be given
to the petitioner to make up for the loss of academic session
suffered by him in the Commerce stream in the current academic
year.
(f) To avoid any such occurrence in future, respondent No.4/School
shall ensure that while allocating subject streams to the students
in the higher classes, their collective analysis sheets are
scrutinized and tallied at two separate levels so that any
discrepancy if detected, is rectified in the process of cross
checking.
(g) The aforesaid procedure shall be prescribed by respondent
No.2/CBSE as a standard guideline to be followed by all the
schools affiliated to it and duly circulated by it within six weeks
for intimation to the schools for making necessary compliances.
34. The writ petition is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 24, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
