MASTER MANISH SOOD Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this civil writ petition is a minor and he is represented through his mother and natural guardian.

(2.) The respondents are: (1) Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2) The Director of Education, National Capital Territory of Delhi, (3) The Principal, Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi, and (4) The Delhi Public School through its Manager, Mathura Road, New Delhi.

(3.) According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner is a student of the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi since 1985. He appeared in Class XI examination in March 1994 in the Commerce (without mathematics) stream. When the results were declared the petitioner was declared to have failed in English and he was detained. The progress report shows that the petitioner got only 20% marks in English. Taking all the subjects together the aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner is 32%. When it was known that the petitioner had been detained, the petitioner's mother who is also a member of the staff of the School, made a representation to the respondent No. 3 Principal, on 7th April, 1994 requesting that the petitioner may be either promoted or given compartmental test in English. When there was no reply from the respondent No. 3, the petitioners mother submitted another representation dated 12th May, 1994 to the respondent No. 3 requesting to promote the petitioner to Class XII. By another letter dated 28th July 1994 written on behalf of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 was requested to supply a copy of the relevant rules. The case of another student by name Shelka Dutt was also pointed out in support of the petitioner's right to appear at the compartmental test. Aggrieved by the complete silence on the part of respondent No. 3, the petitioner's mother wrote a letter dated 11th August, 1994 to respondent No. 4, Manager of the Delhi Public School (The Chairman DPS Society, New Delhi) and failed to reply to the representations / letters sent on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner's mother sent a representation dated 17th August, 1994 to respondent No. 2, Director of Education, requesting him to direct the School to promote the petitioner to Class XII. On 18th August 1994 the petitioner also issued a legal notice to respondent No. 3 to compel him to include the name of the petitioner in the nominal rolls of Class XII. However there was no favourable response to the letters/representations/legal notice. In the meanwhile the petitioner received a letter dated 24th August, 1994 from the Vice-Principal of the School pointing out that the petitioner had not been attending School since July 4,1994 and requiring the parent to see the Principal at the earliest so that the petitioner's name was not struck off the rolls. In reply to the said letter of the Vice-Principal, the petitioner's mother sent a reply on 26th August 1994 pointing out that the petitioner's name did not figure in any of the nominal rolls of Class XI or Class XII in 1994-95. It is also alleged in the civil writ petition that after repeated requests made on behalf of the petitioner, the third respondent agreed to allow the petitioner to take a re-test subject to the condition that he undertook to apply for transfer certificate. It is further alleged that the above condition stipulated by respondent No. 3 was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 by the petitioner's mother through a letter dated 30th August, 1994, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-Pl 1. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 has since refused to allow the petitioner to appear in a retest. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner filed this civil writ petition praying for the following reliefs: (a) declare that the refusal of respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner a chance to appear in the compartmental test for Class XI is violative of his rights under Article 14 and illegal, and (b) pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3, to hold a compartmental test for the benefit of the petitioner within a reasonable time, or (c) pass an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 2 to issue suitable directions to Respondent No. 3, to hold compartmental test in English for the benefit of the petitioner. (d) pass an appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the letters dated 17.8.1994 and 26.8.1994 and consequently suitably alter his attendance record."