Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 257 (JK)

Musa Minor v. Burn Hall Higher Secondary School

2016-05-10

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Respondent school appear to have issued a notification for admission to LKG class for the Session 2015-16, in response whereof, petitioner applied for the registration of his ward (Musa). In connection therewith, he has generated three application forms through website of the school under serial Nos.1036, 1110 and 1209. When the shortlist was issued, name of the petitioner figured at serial No.93 against the form No.1110 and also at serial No.174 as against form No.1209. When the school issued the select list, form No.1036 was found selected. Petitioner claim to have deposited the requisite fee but later on was not allowed to sit in the classes on the ground that no admission has been granted to him. In fact, some other candidate had been selected under registration No.1036. 2. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction. While disposing of application for interim relief filed alongside the suit, the school authorities were directed to admit the ward of the petitioner. The said order of the trial court (3rd Addl. Munsiff, Srinagar) dated 25th February, 2016 has been challenged by medium of an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the appellate court i.e. Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The appellate court has accepted the appeal and set aside order of the trial court on two grounds, firstly the contract is revocable and an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced and secondly, the conduct of the petitioner has been blameworthy as he instead of submitting one application form has submitted three application forms for a single child and had obtained three different registration numbers which has become cause for un-necessary litigation. Dissatisfied with order of the appellate court dated 31.03.2016, instant petition has been filed. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner, in fact, while generating application from through website, fiddled with the system, as a result whereof he got three numbers, however, the receipt of only one form was generated and was downloaded by the petitioner as receipt of form No.1036 based on which he has been selected. 4. Counsel for the respondent school made it clear that basically petitioner himself has raised an un-necessary dispute. The ward of the petitioner, in fact, had been considered only against form No.1209 and not against form No.1036. 4. Counsel for the respondent school made it clear that basically petitioner himself has raised an un-necessary dispute. The ward of the petitioner, in fact, had been considered only against form No.1209 and not against form No.1036. In order to make it clear, learned counsel invited attention towards admission notice which clearly provides that “the people desirous to seek admission for their son to Class LKG (Session 2015-16) should fill in the online application form on school website www.burnhallschool.org”. Then printout copy of the filled application form duly signed was to be submitted to the school office to obtain registration form against the payment of Rs.500/. When the petitioner filled in the online form, he appeared before the school authorities and then, as required, filled up application form wherein only one registration number is recorded i.e. registration No.1209. That application form is duly signed by the petitioner based on which his ward has been admitted to interaction. The result position of application form bearing registration No.1209 is also annexed with the application form, as produced in original, which otherwise will mean and show that the petitioner while appearing before the school authorities for filling up the form has reflected only registration number i.e. 1209, so other two registration numbers i.e. 1110 and 1036 have been ignored. It being so, how the petitioner can claim that his ward was selected under registration No.1036. Learned counsel for the respondent further added that against registration No.1036, another boy, namely, Brian Keith Tirkey has been selected. In support thereof, he has produced original registration form along with result of interaction of said Brian Keith. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner has filled up application form before the school authorities wherein Registration number is recorded as 1209, how could he claim selection against registration No.1036. Further added that noticing the position of Registration No.1036, petitioner has obtained pay-in-slip and deposited admission fee against said Registration No.1036 against which he was not selected. 6. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner has filled up application form before the school authorities wherein Registration number is recorded as 1209, how could he claim selection against registration No.1036. Further added that noticing the position of Registration No.1036, petitioner has obtained pay-in-slip and deposited admission fee against said Registration No.1036 against which he was not selected. 6. Confronted with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the student, namely, Brian Keith selected against Registration No.1036, has not applied on line, how he has been permitted to fill up the form as same could be done only after filing the on line form but same is specifically repelled by the counsel for the respondents by stating that in the admission notice it is clearly reflected that “people falling under BPL Category are not required to fill the online application form and can directly approach the school office on 31st August, 2015 between 09:00 am to 01:00 pm to obtain the registration form against payment of Rs.100/-” and it is in the same background said Brian Keith has been selected. 7. On careful scrutiny of the records, it is revealed that it is the petitioner himself who has created mess by filling three application forms in the name of his ward but when he appeared before the school authorities, he filled up form under Registration No.1209. Said application form bears signature of the petitioner with all details. When it is so, how could he claim to have been selected under Registration No.1036. Depositing Rs.75,000/ would not given him any right of selection as against Registration No.1036 under which he has neither been admitted to interaction nor got selected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the position of his filling up application form before the school authorities as also his signature on the said application form. It is quite understandable that when on line three forms have been filled up, then subsequent requirement that the form was to be filled up in the school would confine to consideration of the candidate against only one Registration number not against all the three Registration numbers. When petitioner has filled up application form in the school under Registration No.1209, how could he claim to have been admitted to interaction vis-à-vis form under Registration No.1036 or 1110. Unnecessary litigative process has been initiated by the petitioner. When petitioner has filled up application form in the school under Registration No.1209, how could he claim to have been admitted to interaction vis-à-vis form under Registration No.1036 or 1110. Unnecessary litigative process has been initiated by the petitioner. Appellate court has rightly taken into consideration all the facts as stated hereinabove. 9. No case whatsoever is made out which would warrant indulgence. Petition being without merit deserves dismissal with costs but taking a lenient view is dismissed without costs. 10. While parting, I would like to observe that since it is the prospect of a minor ward, if otherwise there is any scope for his admission in the school, that may be considered. 11. The record as produced be returned to the learned counsel for the respondent.