RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition of Rakesh Kumar under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India came for hearing in the first instance before my learned brother (Gurdev Singh J.) and on his recommendation the matter has been placed before a Division Bench for disposal.

(2.) IN substance there is no dispute on the facts which gave rise to this reference. The petitioners, a student of ninth class in Government Multi-purpose Higher secondary School. Patiala, resides with his father in the first floor is used as a government dispensary. The father of the petitioner Dr. Ram Partap is in charge of this dispensary and there is a compound outside the dispensary. The dispensary is only in a portion of the ground floor of the building and in the other wing of it is a school. On 20th February, 1965, there was a scuffle between the petitioner and another boy of the school which is located in the ground floor. It would be useless for purposes of this petition to trace the origin of the flight and it would be sufficient to say that on an altercation between the petitioner and the other boy, three women teachers of the school came to the rescue of the latter. The petitioner who came to be assisted by his elder brother is said to have maltreated the teachers. There are two separate versions of this incident and the cross hurt cases are awaiting adjudication before a criminal Court. It is to be emphasised that the matter is still sub judice, processes having been issued to both parties in the dispute. When the petitioner on 10th March, 1965, went to appear in the annual examination in his school (Government Multi purpose Higher Secondary school) which is different from the one located in the ground floor of the building where the incident took place, he was handed over the following order addressed to his father. This order which is Annexure 'a' is as follows;--

(3.) THAT the impugned order entails the consequences of a far-reaching nature can admit of no dispute. The suspension of the petitioner from the school is indefinite and though it is asserted by Mr. Wasu, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the suspension is only of a temporary nature and will not extend beyond the duration of the criminal cases the matter cannot be allowed to rest there.