KAPIL SHERAWAT Vs. C B S E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been detained by the respondent School because it was expected that he will not secure more than 60 per cent marks in the forthcoming Board Examinations. This has vehemently been denied by the respondent school which has furnished a list of names of several students who had secured less than 60 per cent marks in the previous examination, nevertheless in respect of whom steps have been taken to ensure their appearance in the Board Examination. One of these persons is the sister of the petitioner himself, younger to him by 21/2 years. Prima facie, the difference in age indicates that the petitioner is not serious in his studies as his younger sister has already caught up with him. In the backdrop of seriously contested questions of fact, this Court must arrive at quick assessment on the likely tactual matrix. It is in this regard that the 21/2 years difference between the two siblings assumes importance. The allegation against the School appears to me to be as fanciful and incredible as the second argument that the Principal to the respondent School had demanded a large sum of money for permitting the petitioner to appear in the Board Examinations.

(2.) In the previous hearing Mr. Atul Kumar. Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 had appeared on advance notice and had been fair enough to cooperate in the issuance of a duplicate Admit Card to the petitioner so that he could appear in the examination scheduled for March 2, 2006. Mr. Atul Kumar now states that the records of the respondent School have been verified and the CBSE has no reason to disbelieve the stand of the respondent School that the petitioner has only 48 per cent attendance and hence was ineligible to appear in the Board Examinations. This fact had been disclosed by the School to the CBSE by letter dated 24.2.2006 followed by another letter dated 2.3.2006.

(3.) On behalf of the School reliance has also been placed on their letter dated 26.9.2005 informing the parents of the petitioner that the petitioner had not been attending the School regularly and his class performance was unsatisfactory. By letter dated 14.10.2005 the parents of the petitioner were again informed that the petitioner was absent from School without any information. This was followed up by yet another letter dated 6.1.2006. Receipt of these letters has not been admitted by the petitioner but this only leads to the position that there are serious disputes as to questions of fact. Photo-copies of the Attendance Register have been placed on record by the respondents which I have no reason to disbelieve. There is also a letter dated 3.10.2005 signed by the petitioner as well as his mother undertaking to improve the conduct of the petitioner. The School admits that the portion in Hindi is neither in the handwriting of the petitioner nor in his Mother's handwriting. It is, however, stated that the letter was received by the School from these persons. An incredible version has been put forward on behalf the petitioner that the Mother as well as the petitioner had signed a blank paper.