Delhi High Court
Master Tanush Gautam (Minor) Thr ... vs Bulebells School International ... on 14 July, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.07.2016
+ W.P.(C) 5112/2016 & CM No. 21252/2016
MASTER TANUSH GAUTAM (MINOR) THR FATHER
DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
BULEBELLS SCHOOL INTERNATIONAL
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Manish Kumar
For the Respondents : Mr Rajinder Dhawan for respondent No. 1
Mr Siddharth Dutta for respondent No. 2 GNCTD.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
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)
category. Fresh certificate dated 04.04.2016 has been filed along with the
petition. The respondent no. 2 was directed to verify the correctness of
the certificate. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has produced a
certificate of online verification certifying that the certificate has been
issued. The same is taken on record.
3. 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.'.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - School submits
that the income certificate furnished by the father of the petitioner is not
reliable as it shows an income of Rs.90,000/- per annum, which is way
below the minimum wage prescribed for an unskilled worker. It is
contended that the petitioner's father claims to be working as Sales
Assistant/Helper in some private retail shop and must be earning at least
the minimum wage. Learned counsel contends that only those
individuals, who are self-employed, would be eligible in this category as
no person employed can earn less than the minimum wages.
5. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
school cannot be accepted. Even if a person is in employment, it does not
necessarily imply that the employee is in fact receiving the minimum
wage. Further, if this contention of the learned counsel were to be
accepted, then children of persons who are employed would not be
entitled to seek admission under the EWS category. If the contention
were to be accepted, then even though their actual income may be below
the specified limit, they would be deemed to be receiving at least the
minimum wage.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further contends that the
address mentioned by the petitioner in the present petition shows that the
distance of the residence of the petitioner from the School is more than
one kilometre. He submits that at the time of seeking admission, the
petitioner had provided a different address based on which the admission
was granted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at that
point of time was residing at the address mentioned in the application but
the father of the petitioner had to subsequently change the address
because of financial constraints and have now shifted to the house of the
grandfather of the petitioner. He contends that it is always permissible for
the parents of the students to change their residence after the admission
has been taken. He further contends that the ground for rejection was not
that the address furnished was incorrect. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 contends that the respondent No.1 was not aware of the
said address till the notice cancelling the admission was received back
undelivered.
8. The contention of the counsel for the respondent cannot be
sustained. A student can always change residence midstream. If it is
permissible for a student who is already admitted to change his address
midstream, then to deny the petitioner to also do so would be too harsh
and discriminatory. Furthermore, no prohibition has been shown in law
that a student cannot shift to a residence that is beyond one kilometre.
9. 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. In similar
circumstances, relief has been granted by this court in the case of Master
Jai Raikwar & Ors.(Supra) and several other writ petitions.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. However, it is clarified that no opinion has been expressed with
regard to the criminal proceedings. It is further 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.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 14, 2016/'sn'
