Kumar Nitish (Minor) vs The St. Xavier'S School
2021 Latest Caselaw 910 Jhar

                            1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  L.P.A. No.334 of 2020
                          ------

1. Kumar Nitish (Minor), aged about 12 years through his Father and Legal Guardian Mahendra Singh aged about 44 years, S/o Late Sarju Singh, R/o Barkagaon Road near Doordarshan Tower, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh

2. Divyanshu Prasad Mehta (Minor), aged about 13 years through his Father and Legal Guardian Mahesh Prasad Mehta, aged about 34 years, S/o Gyani Mehta, R/o Village Kurha, P.O. & P.S. Ichak, District-Hazaribagh

3. Hassan Anwar (Minor), aged about 14 years through his Father and Legal Guardian Anwar Ali aged about 46 years, S/o Abdul Quadir, R/o Village Sakhiya, P.O. Oriya, P.S. Mufassil, District- Hazaribagh

4. Abhay Kumar Paswan (Minor), aged about 11 years through his Father and Legal Guardian Mritunjay Kumar Paswan aged about 40 years, S/o Bhuneshwar Paswan, R/o Gram Mahisha, P.O. Mamdhania, P.S. Mayurhant, District-Chatra

5. Gaurish Soni (Minor), aged about 12 years through his Father and Legal Guardian Gaurav Soni aged about 38 years, S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Soni, R/o Panch Mandir Chowk, P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S.-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh .... .... Appellants Versus

1. The St. Xavier's School, Ranchi Patna Road, D.V.C. Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh

2. The Principal, St Xavier's School having its office at St. Xavier's School, Ranchi Patna Road, D.V.C. Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh

3. The Central Board of Secondary Education, Siksha Kendra-II, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, P.O. & P.S.-New Delhi, District-New Delhi .... .... Respondents

4. Sumit Kumar Mittal (Minor), aged about 15 years through his Father and Legal Guardian Ajay Prasad Agrawal, aged about 46 years, S/o Dwarika Prasad Agarwal, R/o P.O. & P.S. Katkam Sandi, District-

   Hazaribagh                          ....   .... Performa Respondent
                                With


                W.P.(C) No.2142 of 2020
                         ------

St. Xavier's School, Hazaribagh, through its Secretary, Managing Committee, Saju Bastian Son of Kathalimattam Joseph Sebastian, aged about 57 years, resident of Sector-1/C, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. and, District-Bokaro .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Jharkhand, Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh

3. District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh

4. District Education Officer-cum-Nodal Officer, Right to Education Act, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh

5. Dibyanshu Prasad Mehta (Minor), represented through his natural Guardian and father Mahesh Prasad, son of Mahesh Prasad Mehta resident of Nagwa Hazaribag Hawai Adda, P.S., Sadar, P.O. & District- Hazaribagh

6. Kumar Nitish (Minor), represented through his natural guardian and father Mahendra Singh, son of Sarju Ram, resident of Barkagaon Road, Near-Doordarshan Tower, P.S. Sadar, P.O. & District Hazaribagh

7. Gaurish Soni (Minor), represented through his natural guardian and father Gaurav Soni, son of Ganesh Soni resident of M/s Kasauti Jewellers, Malviya Marg, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, P.O. & District Hazaribagh

8. Abhay Kumar Paswan (Minor), represented through his natural guardian and father Mritunjay Paswan, son of Bhuneshwar Paswan, resident of Inderpuri Chowk, Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, P.O. & District Hazaribagh

9. Sumit Mittal (Minor), represented through his natural guardian and father Ajay Prasad Agrawal, son of, Dwarika Pd. Agrawal resident of Vishnupuri, Lane 15, P.S. Sadar, P.O. & District Hazaribagh

10. Hasan Anwar (Minor), represented through his natural guardian and father Anwar Ali son of Kadir Ansari, resident of Lalpur Chowk, P.O. Oreya, P.S. Mufassil & District-Hazaribagh .... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Aparajita Bhardawaj, Advocate For the School : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, GA-V For the CBSE : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate

------

ORAL JUDGMENT 14/Dated: 24.02.2021

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties. There is no complaint about

any audio and visual quality.

LPA No.334 of 2020

The instant appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent Appeal

directed against the order/judgment dated 12.10.2020 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2109 of 2020, whereby

and whereunder, the writ petition questioning the action of St. Xavier's

School, Ranchi-Patna Road, DVC Colony, whereby, the writ petitioner

have neither been allowed to take admission in the higher classes nor

have been permitted to attend their online classes has been dismissed on

the ground of maintainability.

2. The matter has been heard on several occasions and it has been

adjourned on the prayer made on behalf of the respective parties for

outside settlement of the issue.

3. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the

issue has been settled since the School in question has undertaken to

allow the writ petitioners to take admission in the promoted classes as

also to allow them to appear in the physical classes/online classes, if the

appellants-writ petitioners deposit necessary fee and proper undertaking.

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-writ

petitioners has submitted before us that fee as required has already been

deposited by the appellants-writ petitioners, save and except, the

appellant no.2 herein.

5. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by Mr. Indrajit

Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the School in question on instruction

has submitted that the appellants-writ petitioners will be admitted in the

higher classes and they will be allowed to participate in the physical/online

classes.

However, submission has been made that since the appellant no.2

has not deposited the required fee, therefore, such consensus is not being

granted to him.

6. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and considering the fact that settlement has been arrived at in between

the parties as indicated hereinabove, deem it fit and proper to dispose of

the matter taking into consideration the undertaking furnished by the

learned counsel for the parties.

7. So far as the appellant no.2 is concerned, needless to say that if the

required fee will be deposited by him, he will also be given the same

treatment as of other appellants, however, if no such fee will be deposited

by him, the School in question will be at liberty to take appropriate

decision.

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

9. In consequent to disposal of this appeal, I.A. No.5622 of 2020 and

I.A.No.5623 of 2020 also stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.2142 of 2020

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India questioning the decision of the District

Superintendent of Education dated 04.07.2020 as contained in Memo

No.1473, by which, the decision of the petitioner's School to take

disciplinary action against its Students i.e., respondent nos.5 to 10, has

been quashed and set aside.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-School has submitted

that the writ petition may be disposed of leaving the legal issues open for

its consideration in appropriate case.

3. Since the issue as above (LPA No.334 of 2020) has already been

resolved amicably outside the Court, therefore, the issue raised in this writ

petition has lost its efficacy and becomes of academic value, hence, we

are not going into the merit of the issue in the case in hand.

4. However, the legal issue raised in this writ petition is left open to be

considered in an appropriate case.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit/-N.A.F.R.