MASTER RAHUL SETH (MINOR) Vs. MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks direction for quashing the impugned letters dated 27th July, 2009 and 30th July, 2009 and to direct the respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to join the classes and direction to respondent No. 2 to take action against the respondent No. 1 school. The petitioner was suspended for one month on account of persistent violation of dress code of wearing belt on the hips in an indecent manner. The father of the petitioner was given show cause notice and asked to give a personal assurance in writing that the disobedience will not be done by his son. Instead of showing remorse and counseling his son, the father of the petitioner threatened the Principal of the school and also called an SI of the police to the school and threatened with registration of a criminal case leading to indefinite suspension of the petitioner.

(2.) THE father of the petitioner, therefore, had filed a suit for perpetual/permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking direction to take back the letter of suspension dated 27th July, 2009 and to declare the suspension illegal. The suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was contested by the school contending inter alia that school is a prestigious school of Delhi and the petitioner was aware of the dress/uniform code as the elder brother of the petitioner was also a student of the school. The school also contended that not only the petitioner but other children were also issued notices for violating the dress code/uniform code. On persistent violation of the dress code, the petitioner was suspended for one month and the father of the petitioner was asked to give a personal assurance in writing that the disobedience will not be done by his son. However, the parents of the petitioner opted for confrontation with the school despite the fact that the act of the petitioner was not only in violation of the dress code/uniform code but was an indecent act which persisted despite notices and instead of appreciating the concern of the school, the father of the petitioner came back with a Sub Inspector of the Police and threatened the school Principal with lodging an FIR against the school.

(3.) INSTEAD of filing another suit, the petitioner has filed the present petition which tantamount to forum choosing in the facts and circumstances. The liberty granted to the petitioner's father by the Civil Court was to file another civil suit. A civil Court does not grant liberty to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor on the basis of such liberty the petitioner can contend that the writ petition is maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to how the writ petition will be maintainable, after the suit was filed involving disputed question of facts, which was withdrawn. For subsequent events after 27th July, 2009 i.e another letter dated 30th July, 2009 and subsequent suspension for indefinite period of the petitioner which is alleged to be contrary to Delhi School Education Rules, either the pending suit on behalf of the petitioner could be amended or another suit could be filed. Even in the civil suit, the petitioner can challenge the indefinite suspension on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of Delhi School Education Rules. The dispute is about the persistent indecent behavior of the petitioner and the support of the parents for such a behavior and the parent instead of counseling the petitioner, confronting the school authorities and threatening them. These allegations made by the school are not admitted by the petitioner. There are different versions in respect to what transpired between the principal of the school and father of the petitioner. The school had filed a recorded CD showing what transpired between the Principal and the father of the petitioner.