MINOR K.ARAVINTHAN Vs. THE PRINCIPAL,SAINIK SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner has sworn to the affidavit on behalf of his son, Minor K.Aravinthan and he would state that his son/petitioner is a student of first respondent school, studying VII Standard with Roll No.6050 and the said school is functioning under the second respondent and it is one of the Sainik Schools in this country. It is further stated by the petitioner that local administration of the first respondent school is looked after by a Local Board of Administration, whose Chairman is the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (GOC-in-C) of the concerned command, where the Sainik School is located. It is further stated that the petitioner had completed VII Standard and he is promoted to VIII Standard and on 26.02.2016, there was a scuffle between two students of the petitioner's class and the petitioner tried to pacify them and during that time, one of the student, namely Sri Bhavan Prakath accidentally fell on the ground and sustained fracture and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said incident and the said incident was also captured in Closed Circuit TV Cameras and also video footage.

(2.) The first respondent has called the father of the petitioner to meet him and accordingly he met him on 02.03.2016 and explained the events that took place and further that his son is innocent. The first respondent has informed the petitioner's father that a decision has been taken to dismiss the petitioner and the father of the petitioner made an appeal to withdraw the said decision with a request to permit the petitioner to continue studies in the said school. However, to the shock and surprise, the first respondent has sent a communication dated 26.03.2016 stating that the Board of Enquiry, after conducting enquiry, made a recommendation to withdraw the petitioner from the school and therefore, called his father to come to the school and to collect his Ward on or before 29.03.2016. The first respondent also issued a letter dated 29.03.2016 stating that the first respondent has decided to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner and his name will be struck off from the rolls and once again called upon the father of the petitioner to take back the petitioner. The petitioner, challenging the legality of the communications of the first respondent dated 26.03.2016 as well as 29.03.2016, has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that CCTV video coverage would clearly reveal that the petitioner had no role to play with regard to the alleged assault between two students and the petitioner merely intervened and pacify them and in that process, one of the students fell down and sustained fracture and it was nothing but accidental. Alternatively, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even for the sake of arguments that the petitioner was the cause for the sustainment of fracture by the student, it was not intentional but only accidental and therefore, punishment of withdrawal of the petitioner from the first respondent school is highly disproportionate and prays for interference.