PURUSHOTTAM LAL SINGHANIA Vs. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition against the unaided private school is not maintainable. I permitted the parties to exchange affidavits regarding the objection; accordingly opposition and reply have been filed.

(2.) On the strength of the Apex Court decision in Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2178, counsel for the petitioner argues that since right to education is a fundamental right, the school, discharging a public duty, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He contends that by issuing the transfer certificate to the petitioner's son arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice, it has infringed his fundamental right to education. His contention is that if a fundamental right is even remotely affected, the aggrieved person is entitled to approach the writ Court against the violator, public or private whatever it be.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents disputes the position. By referring me to the regulations framed by the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations he argues that they do not govern the cases regarding discipline and conduct of the students at the school. He contends that even if the school has been discharging some public duty, it cannot be said that disciplinary action taken against the son of the petitioner was taken in the discharge of such public duty, or that it has any connection with the public duty it is supposed to discharge.