VIKRAMADITYA JAIN MINOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order of his expulsion dated June 2, 1998 from the American Embassy School. The facts lie in a narrow compass.

(2.) In the year 1993 the petitioner joined the third respondent, American Embassy School (formerly known as American International School), in the VII Standard. The petitioner was eventually promoted to the High School of the same institution. By means of a letter dated August 8, 1997 the fourth respondent, the Principal of the School Mr. Kevin Schafer, informed the parents of the petitioner that he was being placed on Final probation for remainder of his enrolment at the school in view of the seriousness of the disciplinary issues. It was also pointed out that in case any further disciplinary issues arise with the petitioner the school will immediately proceed with his expulsion. It was further stated that the letter serves us a final warning to the petitioner. On May 22, 1998 the petitioner was called by the Director of the third respondent along with five other students. He was informed that Hjalte Seeberg, a sixth grade student of the school, had alleged that the petitioner along with others was harassing him over a period of one month or more. The petitioner denied the allegations in writing by his letter dated May 23, 1998. On May 26, 1998, the father of the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Jain, was called by the Principal of the School and was informed that six students includ- ing the petitioner were involved in verbal and physical harassment of a sixth grade boy Hjalte Seeberg over a month or more. He was also informed that he had recommended to the Director the expulsion of the petitioner from the school. The parents of the petitioner by a letter dated May 27, 1998 to the Director of the School controverted the allegations against the petitioner. Copies of this letter were sent to the fourth respondent as well as to Mr. Carter, President of the Board of Governors of the School. On June 2, 1998 the Board of Governors of the school informed the parents of the petitioner that in their judgment the petitioner was involved in the disciplinary issue, and therefore in terms of the letter of the fourth respondent dated August 6, 1997 the petitioner was being expelled from the school. It appears that on June 3, 1998 a legal notice was sent to the third respondent at the instance of the father of the petitioner. However, the Advocates of the third respondent informed the Advocates of the father of the petitioner that the decision to expel the petitioner was final and that the school considered the matter as closed. The petitioner being aggrieved of his expulsion has filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) The preliminary question which needs to be decided is whether the third respondent is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.