MASTER AJAY KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is against the action of the Principal of the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi in detaining the petitioner in Class X during 1997-98 academic year.

(2.) According to the petitioner he is a student of Class X in the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi a recognised unaided school. His father is a Tabla Teacher in the said school. The petitioner has been studying in the said school from the very beginning. Though he had failed in Mathematics in Class IX he was promoted to Class X. There were also other students who had failed in various subjects in Class X during 1996-97. Some had failed in as many as four out of five subjects. When they were summarily promoted, the petitioner was given promotion by respondent No.3, the Principal of the School, only after much persuasion a pleadings. It is alleged that respondent No.3 had been forcing the petitioner to withdraw from the school on the ground of his poor performance in the first terminal test. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of a letter dated 3.9.1997 written by the Principal (Annexure-P2) to the parent of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had scored only 14% marks in the first test and that he was failing miserably and requesting the parent to withdraw the petitioner from the school immediately as per his undertaking. The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the letter dated 16.9.1997 (Annexure-P3) written by the parent to the Principal stating that there was no question of his taking action on the alleged undertaking said to have been executed by him. It was also stated in the said letter that the continuation of his child in the school was not a matter of contract as his continuation was dictated by law. It was further stated that the child could not be asked to withdraw from the school on the ground that he scored a low percentage of marks. Reference was also made in the letter to some judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner's father, being an employee of the school, is in occupation of the staff quarters since 1992. On account of his mother's illness the petitioner's father had been requesting for a change of the quarters but respondent No.3 insisted that the petitioner should be withdrawn from the school first. It is stated that the petitioner's father refused to accept the said condition and as a result the petitioner's father has been subjected to victimisation by respondent No.3. By a letter dated 18.9.1997 of the Principal, the petitioner's father was informed that there had been flaw in appointing him as Tabla teacher on regular basis since there was no certificate in his file to show that he had attended any school upto any level. It was also pointed out in the letter that the date of birth given in the file of the petitioner's father did not appear to be supported by any acceptable document and that there was no evidence of any qualifications for teaching Tabla. The petitioner's father was, therefore, directed to produce to documents to prove his eligibility for appointment as a Tabla teacher on regular basis. The petitioner's father replied through a latter dated 24.7.1997 stating that he had submitted the original certificates and attested copies within period of fifteen days of acceptance of the appointment and that the said original certificates have been in the custody of the school since 1985. He also enclosed with the said letter photocopies of the qualification certificate and the date of birth certificate. Then the petitioner's father received the letter dated 24.9.1997 (Annexure-P7) from respondent No.3 informing as follows:

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that the detention of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and motivated by mala fides and that it is dictated by extraneous considerations. It is also contended that the order of detention is illegal and void since respondent No.3 is not recognised by the statutory authority i.e. respondent No.1. It is further contended that the impugned order dated 24.9.1997 is discriminatory and violative of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is alleged that 18 students have failed in the petitioner's class itself in the first term examination in various subjects. According to the petitioner respondent No.3 has no power to detain any student in Class X. It is also stated that the petitioner's promotion to Class X was not a matter of discretion to be exercised by respondent No.1 and that the petitioner had already been promoted by respondent No.3. It is further stated that even though the classes of standard X commenced from 1.4.1997 the petitioner was promoted to Class X only in May, 1997 and hence he had only a few weeks to study for the first term examination and, therefore, the detention is unreasonable.