N SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a question of great and general importance. The Petitioner is a student of Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi, having joined it in 1993 in the Nursery. In May, 2005 the Petitioner passed the Class X Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) securing an overall percentage of 65.2%, with 60% in Science and Mathematics. He thereupon applied for the Science Stream in Class XI, but has been offered only the Commerce Stream without Maths. According to the averments in the petition, the Petitioner's father met the Principal of the School in the middle of June, 2005 but the renewed request for the Petitioner being permitted to join the Science Stream had not fructified. It has been asserted that as many as 90 seats are still available in the Science Stream, in respect of which admission of outside students is under consideration. Learned Counsel for the School has admitted that there are some vacant seats remaining in the Science Stream. By letter dated 4.7.2005 the Principal informed the Petitioner's father that the stream of subject is offered purely on comparative merits, in the interest of the institution and the child. Since the Petitioner had secured only 60% marks in Mathematics and Science he has not been able to fair in the merit enough for awarding the Science Stream. Accordingly, the Principal allowed the Petitioner to opt either for Commerce without Maths or Humanities.

(2.) By consent of parties the petition has been taken up for final hearing since disputed questions of fact, requiring a reply have not arisen. No mala fides are attributable to the School authorities so far as the impugned decision is concerned. The School has merely followed a policy and practice which is taking roots in the metropolis.

(3.) Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for the School has contended that the matter stands fully covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Kumari Renuka Khurana v. Delhi Administration, 44 (1991) DLT 634 (DB). However, in that case the disputes had arisen because of the Order of the Director of Education prescribing the eligibility criteria of 50% marks in aggregate in previous examination for admission to the Nursery Teacher Training Part-I, which was being conducted by a recognised Unaided School. The Court considered Rules 131, 132, 144 and 145 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Education Rules'). Rule 145 is reproduced below: 145. Admission to recognised unaided schools - (1) The head of every recognised unaided school shall regulate admissions to a recognised unaided school or to any class thereof either on the basis of admission test or on the basis of result in a particular class or school. (2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (1), the provisions of this chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to admission to a recognised unaided school as they apply to admissions to an aided school. Education is possessed of the power to issue instructions to unaided schools in the context of admissions of students. The Apex Court granted its imprimatur to the view of the Division Bench that it is only the Head of the School who enjoys regulatory powers with regard to admissions. It clarified that the said precedent did not cover the case of admission or readmission in the same school. Mr. Mittal cannot possibly present an interpretation contrary to that which has been given by the highest Court of the land.