Full Text
Translation output
2# o/oL9.O7 .?OLL
Present: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar for the petitioner.
Ms. Navratan Chaudhary for the respondent
No.l-
Mr. K.P.Sunder Rao for respondent no.3.
Mr. K. N. Katti for counsel for respondent no.2.
,r +W.P.(C) No.3293/2OLL & CM. No. 692O/2OL1-
'{*
_l By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought following directions as under:
"a. Directing the respondent no.3 to not to abolish Sanskrit subject from class Vth to class
X. b. Direct the respondent no.3 to allow to opt Sanskrit as a Subject to those students of class V to X who want it as a subject as per t language policy of respondent no.Z. c. Direct the respondent no.L to
I ensure that the respondent no.3 school must function according to the provisions of Delhi School
Education Act & Rules. d. Direct the respondent no.3 to follow the orders passed by Dy. Director of
Education dated 0810412011 & 201041201,1.
2011:DHC:17391 f rf e. And such other writ/direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and suitable in the facts and circumstances of this case."
The petitioners nowhere in the present petition have explained as to how the petitioners 2 and 3 who are said to be the parents of the students enrolled in the respondent school are aggrieved so as to seek the aforementioned reliefs. So far the case of the petitioner no.l- is concerned she is stated to be employed as a Sanskrit teacher in the respondent school. No grievance has been raised by the petitioner no.L that the respondent school is contemplating to remove the petitioner no.L from the school by abolishing the Sanskrit subject from class Vth to X, against the policy of respondent no.2 Clearly the present petitioners have no locus to file the present petition.
In the light of the above, the present petition is accordingly dismissed.
I n lA>
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
JULY L9,20lr mg
2011:DHC:17391
Present: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar for the petitioner.
Ms. Navratan Chaudhary for the respondent
No.l-
Mr. K.P.Sunder Rao for respondent no.3.
Mr. K. N. Katti for counsel for respondent no.2.
,r +W.P.(C) No.3293/2OLL & CM. No. 692O/2OL1-
'{*
_l By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought following directions as under:
"a. Directing the respondent no.3 to not to abolish Sanskrit subject from class Vth to class
X. b. Direct the respondent no.3 to allow to opt Sanskrit as a Subject to those students of class V to X who want it as a subject as per t language policy of respondent no.Z. c. Direct the respondent no.L to
I ensure that the respondent no.3 school must function according to the provisions of Delhi School
Education Act & Rules. d. Direct the respondent no.3 to follow the orders passed by Dy. Director of
Education dated 0810412011 & 201041201,1.
2011:DHC:17391 f rf e. And such other writ/direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and suitable in the facts and circumstances of this case."
The petitioners nowhere in the present petition have explained as to how the petitioners 2 and 3 who are said to be the parents of the students enrolled in the respondent school are aggrieved so as to seek the aforementioned reliefs. So far the case of the petitioner no.l- is concerned she is stated to be employed as a Sanskrit teacher in the respondent school. No grievance has been raised by the petitioner no.L that the respondent school is contemplating to remove the petitioner no.L from the school by abolishing the Sanskrit subject from class Vth to X, against the policy of respondent no.2 Clearly the present petitioners have no locus to file the present petition.
In the light of the above, the present petition is accordingly dismissed.
I n lA>
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
JULY L9,20lr mg
2011:DHC:17391
JUDGMENT