Full Text
$-2.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 669/2015
AKSHITA KOHLI Appellant
Through: Mr.Akshay Ringe, Adv. with Ms.Kalyani Lai, Ms.Heena Khan, Advs.
Ms.Seema Dolo, Mr.Akhil Kulshreshtha, Adv. for
R-5/CBSE.
Ms.Neelam Sehrawat/DEO.15, Education Deptt., Directorate ofEducation.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
07.01.2016 C.Ms.No.21804/2015 (delay)
In the facts and circumstanced explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
ORDER
1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2873/2015 is the appellant before us.
2. The said writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the writ petitioner to take the examination for Class XII for the Academic Session 2014-15 as regular student and fijrther to allow her to appear as Eligible for Improvement of Performance (EOIP) candidate for -C LPA 669 of2015 Page 1 of[2] 2016:DHC:8415-DB examination in the subjects already held.
3. Admittedly, the writ petitioner/appellant herein was detained in Class
XI. Therefore, the CBSE/respondent No.5 contends that the question of the petitioner/appellant herein being entitled to appear inClass XII examination does not arise.
4. Though the petitioner contended that in fact she had appeared in the Class XI examination and had passed, but the respondent No.3 school is wrongly disputing the same, the learned Single Judge declined to enter into the disputed question of fact in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the order under appeal observing that the same shall not preclude the petitioner from agitating the said issue by way of a civil suit.
5. Though it is vehemently contended before us that the learned SMe Judge is not justified in relegating the petitioner to the civil court for redressal of her grievance since the same would be time consuming and would render the appellant age barred for many professional courses, we are unable to agree. The matter apparently involves various disputed questions of facts which cannot be enquired into and decided in a writ jurisdiction. The order under appeal, therefore, cannot be held to be erroneous and warrants no interference on any ground whatsoever.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE JAYANTNATH,J