Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1113 (DEL)

MITHILESH KUMAR v. SUMMER FIELDS SCHOOL

2009-10-14

GITA MITTAL

body2009
ORDER 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that he falls under the economically weaker sections and consequently has sought fee exemption for his child from the respondent No.1 school. It is pointed out that the petitioners child was studying in the school since the year 2000. On account of the fee enhancements which have been effectuated in view of the enforcements of the pay commissions and the directions of the other respondents, the petitioner submits that he is unable to afford the fees which are required to be paid to the respondent No.1 school. 2. My attention is drawn to the scheme which was formulated by the Government of NCT of Delhi pursuant to orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 3156/2002 which prescribes the annual income limit of Rs. 48,000/- per year for appearance of boys students and Rs. 60,000/- for appearance of girls students. 3. As per the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that he is a trained lawyer. Even as per the writ petition, he is earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/ - per month from his senior. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 points out that this brings the annual income of the petitioner to Rs. 84,000/ - The writ petition also shows that the respondent is residing in a South Delhi colony. 4. The scheme for the EWS of society and the directions of this Court were intended for upliftment of the weaker sections of society entitling them to freeship in recognised unaided schools. It is constitutional obligation of the upliftment of the weakest in the community and their mainstreaming which is aimed at. The scheme is certainly not intended for the benefit of professionals as the petitioners who do not wish to pay the fees because they are enhanced because of the increased liabilities which the school has to provide for. The state is providing an exclusive public education system in this city as well and no effort at all is made by the petitioner to take the benefit thereof so as to ensure that the same achieves the necessary standards. 5. The state is providing an exclusive public education system in this city as well and no effort at all is made by the petitioner to take the benefit thereof so as to ensure that the same achieves the necessary standards. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the scheme of the Government of NCT of Delhi which is relied on by the petitioner also does not apply to the respondent No.1 school for the reason that the school has not obtained any land on any consessional rates from the Government of Delhi and is purely a private enterprise. 6. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the prayers and the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner may instead be permitted to seek the restoration of his admission upon payment of all arrears of the demanded fees in respect of his daughter. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent No.1 would be willing to do so. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is however directed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to pay the arrears of the demanded fees in four monthly equated instalments commencing from 6th November, 2009. The monthly instalments shall be payable by such date of every month till the entire arrears are cleared. Subject to the deposit of the first instalment, making of an appropriate application for restoration of the admission by the petitioner and completion of formalities, the process for re-admission of the child be completed expeditiously. Needless to say, the petitioner will be required to pay all other fees in the future as per the demand of the respondent No.1 as per prescribed. Dasti to parties Writ Petition dismissed.