Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 89 (PAT)

Neha Parashar v. Union Of India

2000-01-19

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order contained in Annexure-5 issued by the Principal, Central School, PPCL at Amjhore by which petitioners admission in class XI (Science) has been cancelled on. 11.10.1999 on the ground that her admission on 3.8.1999 was provisional and subsequently the relevant records could not be produced by the father of the student. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that receipt showing admission of the petitioner on 3.8.1999 contained in Annexure-4 does not show that the petitioner was admitted provisionally and secondly the respondents did not act fairly and never made any communication that petitioners admission was provisional and that further records were required to regularise such admission. 3. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears from Annexure-D that on the application for admission filed on behalf of the petitioner there was a note given on 3.8.1999 to provisionally admit the petitioner subject to submission of necessary approval from KVS (Hq). However, in the counter affidavit there is no averment or any document to show that this noting made by some official of the school on 3.8.1999 was ever communicated to the petitioner or her parents and there is no correspondence or any document to show that the respondents gave any opportunity to the petitioner or her parents to submit the necessary approval which was required according to noting on Annexure-D. 4. It is undisputed that petitioner was admitted as student of class XI and pursued her studies in school for sometime and subsequently it appears that on a special request she has been allowed to take her half yearly examination. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion the impugned action of the respondents is unfair and also against principle of natural justice and accordingly, the impugned order contained in Annexure-5 is quashed. 6. Ordinarily, I would have given an opportunity to the respondents to further proceed in the matter and for giving opportunity of hearing etc. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion the impugned action of the respondents is unfair and also against principle of natural justice and accordingly, the impugned order contained in Annexure-5 is quashed. 6. Ordinarily, I would have given an opportunity to the respondents to further proceed in the matter and for giving opportunity of hearing etc. and producing relevant records to the petitioner or her parents but since the matter concerns the future prospect of a student who has already spent half of the year in the school on account of her admission vide Annexure-4 which did not show that she was provisionally admitted, I do not think it to be a fit case for such liberty to the respondents. The writ application is accordingly allowed as indicated above.