BHABENDRA KUMAR KALITA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the annexure-1 order dated 23-12-94 by which the petitioner's son Cdt Dhrubajyoti Kalita was withdrawn from the school with immediate effect and prays for an appropriate writ or direction to allow the petitioner's son Dhrubajyoti Kalita to continue his studies in Class-VIII in the school and also to allow him to appear in the promotional annual examination.

(2.) The facts of the case may be stated in brief as follows. The petitioner's son Dhrubajyoti Kalita who is aged about 14 was admitted in Class-VI of Sainik School, Goalpara of which the respondent No. 2 is the Principal. The school is a member of the 'Indian Public Schools'. Conference and affiliated to the All India Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. The school is directly functioning under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. It is a residential school. Dhrubajyoti Kalita was promoted to Class-VIII in the year 1994. He was thereafter shifted to a hostel known as Lachit House meant for the senior students from Class-VIII to Class-XII. Class-VIII students are the juniormost in the said hostel. According, to the petitioner in the first part of December, 1994 Dhrubajyoti Kalita had his 2nd phase test (of class-VIII). It has been averted by the petitioner that on the night of 8-12-94 his son was subjected to severe ragging by the senior students of the said hostel, which made impossible for his son to prepare for his examination scheduled for the next day. The 3rd respondent was incharge of the said hostel.

(3.) On 9-12-94 the petitioner's son some how could appear in his paper. However, being subjected to severe ragging compelled him to leave the school on 9-12-94 and came to his parents. On 24-12-94 the petitioner received annexure-1 letter from the 2nd respondent whereby he was informed that his son has withdrawn from the school on gross disciplinary grounds as he left the school on 9-12-94 without permission of the school authority leaving an objectionable note. According to the petitioner this action was taken by the 2nd respondent on his own without giving any opportunity to his son or to the petitioner to explain the position. On receiving the annexure-1 order the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent, that is, the Principal of the school on the day, i.e., 23-12-94. However, nothing was heard from the 2nd respondent. Situated thus, the petitioner submitted yet another annexure-II representation dated 30-12-94. In his representation he informed the 2nd respondent that he was busy with the medical treatment of his son who sustained injuries on his nose and ears when he arrived home on 11-12-94. He also explained the situation and requested the 2nd respondent by annexure-III letter dated 5-1-95 replied to the representation submitted by the petitioner. However, in the said letter the petitioner's first representation dated 23-12-94 was referred to. In the said annexure-III representation the 2nd respondent informed that the petitioner's son left the school in the past many times without permission. This time he "flouted all norms and (Code) of conduct of school by adopting unfair means and left the school leaving behind a note". On receipt of annexure-III letter the petitioner submitted yet another representation dated 28-1-95 reiterating his earlier prayer. However, nothing was done. Hence the present petition.