LAWS(DLH)-2005-3-78

SUMAN TEJPAL Vs. UOI

Decided On March 03, 2005
SUMAN TEJPAL Appellant
V/S
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant case has challenged the order dated 8th September, 2004 whereby the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110088 notified the petitioner of cancellation of the admission of her son Vaibhav Tejpal under the special dispensation quota of the Ministry of Human Resources Development on the allegations that the list of names whereby admission was granted had been forged by her.

(2.) The challenge made in this petition is based on the averment that the petitioner had registered her son Vaibhav Tejpal, then aged five and a half years for admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya, T P Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi by submission of an admission form for the purposes of securing admission in class 1 in the school. According to the petitioner she made enquiries from the various lists notified for admission and kept on enquiring about the status and stage of admission of her son. Finally, on 30th July, 2004, the petitioner was told that a list of 110 students had been notified under the special dispensation quota in which her son was shown at serial no. 110. The petitioner further contends that this was orally told to her without showing her the actual list.

(3.) It is further stated that the petitioner was directed to and so deposited the fees for the period from April, 2004 to September, 2004 in respect of her son Vaibhav Tejpal vide receipt no. 16383 dated 30th July, 2004. Her son started attending the school regularly without any objections till 8th September, 2004. The petitioner submits that without issuance of any notice to show cause, she was handed over a letter dated 8th September, 2004 issued by the Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, T P Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi notifying the petitioner that the admission of her son was cancelled on the purported ground that the petitioner had forged the name of her son in the list of admissions under the special dispensation quota. The petitioner was further notified that action would be initiated for the alleged act of forgery on her part.