Atharv Dadhich & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 7879 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                              Date of decision: 14th October, 2015

+                                     W.P.(C) No.6925/2015

       ATHARV DADHICH & ANR.                  ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Mr. Jinendra Jain, Mr. Ajay Jain, Mr.
                           Abhishek Jain, Mr. Shashwat
                           Bhardwaj & Mr. Kanwaljeet, Advs.
                                             Versus
       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.            ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Sachin Nahar, Adv. for R-1.
                             Mr. Kamal Gupta, Adv. for R-2.
                                             AND
+                                     W.P.(C) No.7666/2015
       MASTER YASH GUPTA (MINOR) THROUGH: HIS NEXT
       FRIEND & NATURAL FATHER SH. NITIN GUPTA...Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Adv.
                                             Versus
       BAL BHARATI PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR. ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Niti Jain, Adv. for Mr. Anuj
                             Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2.
                             Mr. Kamal Gupta, Adv. for R-2.
                                             AND
+                                     W.P.(C) No.7827/2015
       PRATYUSH & ANR.                                            .....Petitioners
                   Through:                    Mr. Jinendra Jain, Mr. Ajay Jain, Mr.
                                               Abhishek    Jain,     Mr.      Shashwat
                                               Bhardwaj & Mr. Kanwaljeet, Advs.

                                             Versus

WP(C) Nos.6925/2015, 7666/2015 & 7827/2015                                   Page 1 of 8
     GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. for R-1.
                           Mr. Kamal Gupta, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The two petitioners viz. Atharv Dadhich and Sarthak Jha in W.P.(C)

No.6925/2015, the sole petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7666/2015 and the two

petitioners viz. Pratyush and Lakshay in W.P.(C) No.7827/2015 seek a

direction to the respondent Bal Bharati School, Pitampura, Delhi to allow

them to continue their studies in the said school. The two petitioners in

W.P.(C) No.7827/2015 have additionally also impugned the order dated 6 th

May, 2015 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Saraswati Vihar,

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). In addition to

the School, the Directorate of Education (DoE) of the GNCTD has been

impleaded as a respondent in all the writ petitions.

2. W.P.(C) No.6925/2015 came up for admission on 29th July, 2015

when it was noticed; i) that the two petitioners therein had been admitted to

the said School in the year 2014 in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS)

category; ii) that they had been expelled from the said School owing to the

findings of an inquiry conducted by the SDM, Saraswati Vihar and in which

inquiry it was found that the EWS certificates furnished at the time of their

admission were fake, and, iii) an FIR in that regard had also been registered.

Though in the said petition the report of the inquiry conducted by the SDM

had not been impugned but still the counsel for the DoE of GNCTD was

requested to produce the same. On the next date i.e. 4th August, 2015, a copy

of the letter dated 6th May, 2015 of the SDM, Saraswati Vihar of the

GNCTD to the School directing the School to cancel the admission to the

said two petitioners for the reason of the same having been procured on the

basis of fake / forged EWS certificates along with certain other annexures

thereto was produced. It was observed in the order of that date that no error

can be found in the action of the School of expulsion of the petitioners and

the relief if any to the petitioners could be granted only in a properly

constituted petition impugning the decision of the SDM. It was further

recorded in the order that considering the fact that the petitioners were

minors and the fault if any was of their respective fathers and that the seats

so vacated by them would remain vacant and that the future of the

petitioners may suffer irreparably, it was enquired from the counsel for the

petitioners, whether the fathers of the petitioners were willing to pay all

arrears of fee as paid by other students admitted to the General Category and

to continue to pay the said fee. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the

fathers of the petitioners were so ready, subject to their right to challenge the

decision of the SDM. The counsel for the DoE of the GNCTD appearing on

advance notice also stated that he has no objection to the said course of

action. Accordingly, notice of the petition was issued to the School.

3. It was thereafter that W.P.(C) No.7666/2015 was filed where the

petitioner, identically placed as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6925/2015, in

the petition itself offered to pay the entire arrears of fee and future fee at

rates as paid by other students admitted to the General Category.

4. The two petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7827/2015 are also identically

placed as the petitioners in the other two writ petitions.

5. The counsel for the School on 26th August, 2015 informed that it was

not as if the seats vacated by the petitioners would remain vacant. It was

stated that the said seats would be filled up with EWS candidates only and

the process for which had already been commenced. It was yet further

stated that if the School was to take back the petitioners, even though

agreeable to pay the requisite fee, in such a situation, would be exceeding

the maximum capacity otherwise fixed for each class, affecting the academic

and educational efficacy of the School. This Court in the order of that date

also observed that EWS seats could not be ordered to be converted into a

paid seat, to accommodate the petitioners. The counsel for the DoE of the

GNCTD also on that date stated that the petitioners / their fathers having

indulged in illegality were not entitled to any discretion.

6. Counter affidavits have been filed by the School and the GNCTD in

W.P.(C) No.6925/2015. The counsels for the petitioners were heard on 27 th

August, 2015 and judgment reserved. During the hearing, it was also

informed that the petitioner No.2 Sarthak Jha in W.P.(C) No.6925/2015 is

not covered by the order dated 6th May, 2015 of the SDM but the School on

its own inquiry has found that the EWS certificate on the basis of which he

was admitted to be fake. The counsel for the petitioners admitted that the

EWS certificate on the basis of which admission was sought, is indeed

forged.

7. Though as aforesaid, during the hearing of the petitions it was at one

time felt that the petitioners, if ready to pay fee at normal rates, should be

allowed to continue their studies in the same School but on further

consideration I am of the view that such a direction in the facts of these

cases is not called for. The counsel for DoE of GNCTD was correct in his

contention that the petitioners / their fathers from their own conduct have

disentitled themselves from any equitable relief. Though my heart still cries

for the petitioners who are of very raw age and dependent upon their parents

/ guardians for their well being but the fact remains that granting of such

relief with such considerations will ultimately benefit the parents of the

petitioners who as per the material presently on record have themselves

indulged in illegality in the matter of admission of the petitioners to the

School. I say so without going into the aspect of challenge if any to the

report of the SDM because the actions of the parents of the petitioners of

agreeing and / or offering to pay the fee of the School at the normal rates is

itself reflective of their not belonging to the EWS category and being not

entitled to admission under the said category. At this tender age at which

the petitioners are, it is their parents who are more anxious about getting

them admitted to a particular school and the petitioners are not old enough to

distinguish one school from another. The counsel for the DoE of GNCTD

during the hearing rightly pointed out that it is not as if the petitioners upon

being expelled from the said School would remain without education. It was

stated that the petitioners have a right under the Right of Children to Free

and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 to be admitted to the

government / municipal school in their neighbourhood. Allowing the

petitioners to continue in the School, in my opinion, would send a wrong

signal / message and encourage others to indulge in such practices under the

belief that even if they are to be caught in future, they have to, at best, pay

monetarily.

8. The counsel for the petitioners in one of the petitions faced therewith

argued that the parents of the petitioners were not to blame for the fake /

forged certificates and in fact the management of the School had collected

full charges from them as from other students and had itself admitted the

petitioners in the EWS category by forging the EWS certificates.

9. However the said argument cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction.

10. As far as the challenge made in W.P.(C) No.7827/2015 to the report

of the SDM is concerned, in my view, once it is admitted that the EWS

certificates are fake / forged and it is the stand that the forgery was not by

the parents but by the School, no fault can be found with the report of the

SDM to the extent of holding the EWS certificates to be fake / forged and

also to the direction to the School to expel the petitioners. The petitioners, if

not belonging to EWS category, cannot continue their education in the said

category blocking a seat belonging to the said category to the detriment of

those in fact belonging to the said category and especially when the seats so

vacated by the petitioners are capable of being filled up with genuine EWS

candidates. The question, whether the EWS certificates were forged by the

parents of the petitioners or by the School authorities themselves is to be

determined in an appropriate proceeding where witnesses can be examined

and cross-examined.

11. In order to accommodate the petitioners, the maximum limit on the

number of students in each class fixed by the School cannot be permitted to

be exceeded, affecting the academic standards and to the detriment of the

other students of the School.

12. There is thus no merit in the petitions.

Dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

OCTOBER 14, 2015 'gsr'