Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.07.2024
BABY KRUTIKA SHARMA THROUGH HER FATHER VASUDEV SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Gosain, Mr. Kartikey Sikka and Ms. Prachi Jain, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel (Civil)
GNCTD.
JUDGMENT
1. The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner, seeking issuance of directions to the respondents, to allow the petitioner to continue to study in class II in respondent no. 2 School, during the pendency of the present case.
2. The petitioner Baby Krutika, who is about six years of age, was studying in the Junior Wing of Holy Innocence Public School i.e. respondent no. 3, which runs under the aegis of respondent no. 4 i.e. Saraswati Education Society. The petitioner was promoted from kindergarten to class I and was thus shifted from Junior Wing of the school to the Senior Wing of Holy Innocence Public School i.e. respondent no. 2 in the academic session 2023-24, and was thereafter promoted from class I to class II by respondent no. 2 school. However, when Baby Krutika joined the respondent no. 2 school in April, 2024, she was ousted by the school. It is alleged that she was ousted from the school in front of the fellow students and she was handed over to her parents, while insulting the parents as well. It is alleged that the school has given a frivolous reasoning for such illegal ouster.
3. Baby Krutika has approached this Court through her father with a prayer for issuance of directions to respondent no. 2 school, to permit the petitioner to continue studying in class II, as promoted by it, for academic session 2024-2025 and all future academic sessions.
4. Sh. Kunal Gosain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the petitioner, who belongs to EWS/DG category and was studying in Class II of Holy Innocents Public School ‘Senior Wing’ i.e. respondent no. 2, has now been arbitrarily ousted by the school. The primary reason for the same, he states, is a dispute between respondent no. 2 school and respondent no. 1 i.e. Directorate of Education. Sh. Gosain argues that the petitioner has been ousted by respondent no. 2 from the school, by citing a frivolous reason that since the school ID of Senior Wing i.e. respondent no. 2 is different from Junior Wing i.e. respondent no. 3, the Directorate of Education had stopped paying respondent no. 2 any grant/allowance for the EWS students. He further submits that respondent no. 2 school, on this ground, had asked the petitioner to either pay Rs. 40,000/- as fee for the previous year and undertake to pay fees in future also, if she wishes to continue studying in the school. Sh. Gosain states that this action of respondent no. 2 is illegal, mala fide and arbitrary as well as in direct violation of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21A of Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel, who appears on advance notice on behalf of respondent no. 1, submits that respondent no. 2 school is unjustified in striking of the name of the petitioner and denying her studying in class II.
6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the facts and the submissions made before it, on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 1/ Directorate of Education.
7. In this regard, this Court notes that it is not disputed that the petitioner herein had applied for and was allotted a seat by respondent no. 1 i.e. Directorate of Education, in the EWS category, in the respondent no. 3 school i.e. Junior Wing of Holy Innocence Public School for nursery/pre-school for the academic session 2022-
2023. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was promoted to class I, and thereafter to class II in the academic session 2024-25 by respondent no. 2, and she had joined the session in April, 2024. She was denied studying further in Class II since there is a dispute between the Directorate of Education and the school regarding payment of grant/allowance for the EWS students. The dispute between the respondent no. 1 and the school is essentially between them, and not between the petitioner belonging to EWS category and the school.
8. Reply in this case is yet to be filed by Directorate of Education and the respondent schools.
9. In the interregnum, to ensure the valuable right of the petitioner to continue to study in class II she was promoted to, and was studying in when she was disallowed to continue her studies, this Court directs that the petitioner herein be allowed to continue studying under the EWS/DG category, in respondent no. 2 school, during the pendency of this petition.
10. In case the petitioner faces any difficulty, the respondent no. 1 is directed to extend full cooperation and assistance to petitioner to ensure that she continues to study in class II in respondent no. 2 school.
11. It is however clarified that this direction is purely provisional in nature, and subject to the outcome of the present writ petition, and no substantive right shall accrue in favour of the petitioner.
12. The application is accordingly disposed of in above terms. CM APPL. 37910/2024 (exemption)
13. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
14. Application stands disposed of.
15. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.
16. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1/GNCTD.
17. Let counter-affidavit be filed within two weeks from today, after providing advance copy of the same to learned counsel for petitioner, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any within one week thereafter.
18. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.
19. On petitioner taking necessary steps, let notice be issued to respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, by all permissible modes, including electronically, dasti as well, for the next date of hearing.
20. Re-notify on 20.11.2024.
21. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.
22. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J JULY 9, 2024