Delhi High Court
Baby Divanshi (Minor) Through His ... vs Govt Of National Capital ... on 3 August, 2016
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 4980/2016
BABY DIVANSHI (MINOR) THROUGH HIS FATHER ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
(THROUGH DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :Mr Ashok Kumar Singh
For the Respondents : Mr Devvrat for R-1.
Mr Rajinder Dhawan for R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 4980/2016 & CM No. 20768/2016(direction)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of letter
dated 12.05.2016 whereby the admission of the petitioner has been
cancelled and name of the petitioner has been struck off from the rolls of
the school on the ground that income certificate furnished at the time of
seeking admission was fake and forged.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the income of the
parents of the petitioner is less than Rs. One lakh per annum which is
below the prescribed limit for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS).
Fresh certificate dated 22.07.2016 has been filed. The respondent no. 2
was directed to verify the correctness of the certificate.
3. The petitioner had taken admission in the respondent No. 2 -
School in the EWS category. In the petition, the petitioner contends that
the disadvantage group category includes both Economically Weaker
Section as well as the other backward classes. The petitioner had sought
to place reliance on the OBC certificate issued to the father of the
petitioner to contend that the petitioner still qualifies in the same
category. During pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has also
produced the income certificate dated 22.07.2016 which shows that the
petitioner is still qualified under the EWS category. The income
certificate has been verified by the respondents.
4. It is not in dispute that the reservation of 25% includes both
Economically Weaker Section and disadvantage group. It would really
make no difference insofar as the respondent No.2 school is concerned
whether the petitioner falls in one or the other category. The petitioner
has produced the income certificate which shows that the petitioner still
qualifies in the EWS category.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on various judgments
passed by this Court in similar circumstances whereby the school
authorities were directed not to cancel the admission of the minor child
on the ground of misdeeds of the father of the child. Learned counsel for
the respondent school states that the seats in EWS category are still
available. One such Judgment relied upon is dated 22.03.2016 in W.P.(C)
2219/2016, titled as 'Master Jai Raikwar & Ors. Vs. The Heritage
School & Ors.'.
6. As the issue involves the education of a minor and the minor falls
in the eligible category and an income certificate certifying the said fact
has been furnished and no fault can be attributed to the minor, in the facts
of the case, a lenient view is required to be taken. It is thus directed that
the admission of the petitioner be restored and not cancelled, subject to
deposit of a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- by the father of the petitioner with the
Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Delhi within two weeks. The hospital
shall utilize the amount for providing treatment to the persons falling
under the EWS category.
7. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the benefits/entitlements
under the said category. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in
the above terms.
8. It is clarified that if the new income certificate furnished by the
petitioner is found to be fictitious or not correct on any account, it shall
be open to the respondents to cancel the admission of the petitioner in
accordance with law and no special equity shall be claimed by the
petitioner by virtue of the present order.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
AUGUST 03, 2016/'sn' SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
