Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1907 (DEL)

MASTER DEEPAK ARORA v. ARUNA UMMAT

2006-10-17

ANIL KUMAR

body2006
ANIL KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WHETHER the petitioner, a student of Delhi Public School, Dwarka can seek admission in science stream (non medical) contrary to the policy laid down by the school for admission to the science stream is the point for determination in this petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner passed his 10th class examination with distinction in the four subjects conducted by Central Board of Secondary Examination and scored 79% marks in aggregate and 77% in ESM. ( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioner is that though he is an illustrious student but unfortunately because of his continued bedridden condition owing to Viral Pyrexia (Typhoid) relapsing into Jaundice and thereafter meeting with an accident resulting into fracture, he could not perform in the examination commensurating with his intelligence and capability. ( 4 ) THE petitioners plea is that he opted for science stream (non medical) with computer science, however, he was put in the commerce stream with mathematics. On commerce stream with mathematics being given to the petitioner, his father met the Principal, respondent No. 1, to put forward his point for allotting science stream to his son. During the meeting with the father of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 insisted that as per the policy of the school the petitioner could be granted admission in the science stream (non medical) only if he had scored 80% marks. ( 5 ) THE petitioner relied on the instructions issued by Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration for various streams in class 11th which contemplates that for science a student declared passed in the secondary school examination must secure atleast 50% marks in aggregate or 85% marks in science and maths in aggregate and in both the cases the student must have scored atleast 40 marks in mathematics. The instructions also contemplates concession of 5 marks to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; Handicapped; those having first, second and third position in the National Games; EFA volunteers who have obtained a certificate for having worked in the EFA Campaign from a competent authority not below the rank of DDE (EFA), and Kashmiri Migrants. ( 6 ) THE petitioner also challenged the action of respondent No. 1 in compelling some other students of DPS, Dwarka to leave the school and admit the students of other schools and who were offered science stream. ( 6 ) THE petitioner also challenged the action of respondent No. 1 in compelling some other students of DPS, Dwarka to leave the school and admit the students of other schools and who were offered science stream. ( 7 ) THE petitioner also emphasized that the seats in various streams are vacant and despite that the petitioner has not been given admission in science stream (non medical) of his choice. ( 8 ) ON these grounds the student challenged the action of the respondents being violative of his fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in not giving the petitioner the subject of his choice. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of N. Singh (Minor) Vs. Director of Education holding that once a student is admitted to a school this admission continues until he passes the last examination for which the school gives education. The petitioner categorically challenged the right of the respondent No. 1 to fix cut off percentage for admission to different streams, specially, different cut off percentages in the different schools run by the same society, as being arbitrary. ( 9 ) THE petition is contested by the respondents, however, no reply was filed on behalf of the respondents and reliance was placed on a judgment of a Division Bench in LPA No. 1650/2005; M. I. Hussain Vs. N. Singh and others. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has distinguished the case of N. Singh decided by a Division Bench of this Court contending inter-alia that N. Singh was a marginal case as that student had scored 66% in comparison to 77% scored by the petitioner in ESM and otherwise also petitioner is a very meritorious student. The petitioner also contended that according to rule 145 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 the admission is to be regulated on the basis of an admission test or on the basis of result in a particular class. Invoking discrimination it was contended that a student who has scored 70. 5% studying at DPS, Mathura Road has been allotted science stream but the petitioner with 77% marks in aggregate and studying at DPS, Dwarka has not been admitted to science stream (non medical) though the management and controlling society for both the schools is the same. Invoking discrimination it was contended that a student who has scored 70. 5% studying at DPS, Mathura Road has been allotted science stream but the petitioner with 77% marks in aggregate and studying at DPS, Dwarka has not been admitted to science stream (non medical) though the management and controlling society for both the schools is the same. ( 11 ) IN M. I. Hussain (Supra) a Division Bench of this Court had set aside the decision of a Single Judge who in view of the seats available in class 11th in science stream directed the school to permit the candidates to join science stream. ( 12 ) PAYAL Guptas case also relied on by the petitioner was distinguished on the ground that the decision does not say that a student must be admitted in a particular stream of his choice but what it mandates is that a student who has passed out of class 10th from a school should be admitted to class 11th in that school, if seats are available. ( 13 ) THIS is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been given admission to class 11th in the same school. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 has fixed the criterion of 80% marks for admission to science stream which cannot be resorted to as the seats are vacant in the science stream (non medical) and the other schools under the management of the same society are granting admission to science stream (non medical) with a percentage of 70% and above. ( 14 ) RELYING on various judgments the Division Bench had held that in policy matters, the Court has very limited scope of interference and the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. In M. I. Hussain (Supra) it was held that the Court cannot ordinarily interfere with administrative matters since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the administration and the Court does not have the expertise in such matters and should leave such matters to the discretion of the administrative authority. In M. I. Hussain (Supra) it was held that the Court cannot ordinarily interfere with administrative matters since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the administration and the Court does not have the expertise in such matters and should leave such matters to the discretion of the administrative authority. ( 15 ) A special leave petition filed against the decision in M. I. Hussain (Supra) has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court and in the circumstances the issue raised by the petitioner stands concluded by the Division Bench and confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the special leave petition. ( 16 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere in the decision of the respondents in not permitting science stream (non medical) to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances. The petitioner was also offered commerce stream with maths after qualifying the secondary examination in 2005. By now the petitioner must have been in class 12th. ( 17 ) IN the facts and circumstances the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised against the decision of the respondents for allotting commerce stream with maths to the petitioner and the writ petition is without any merit. There is no arbitrariness in the decision of the respondents in not allotting science stream (non medical) to the petitioner nor there is such procedural unreasonableness so as to entail interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.