High Court · 2010

11. The respondent-School authority stated that the Union of India b eing represented by the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and the Regio nal Director, Kendriay Vidyalaya Sangathan, Guwahati are not necessary parties t o the present Writ Petition. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have nothing to do with the admission in Class XI in Delhi Public School, Guwahati, in as much as, the D elhi Public School is not bound by Rules, Regulation and Guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Since Delhi Public School is affiliated to CBSE, it has to adhere with the Rules, Regulation and Bye-Laws of CBSE alone. Mr. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-School, submi 12. tted that the Delhi Public School being a Private Unaided School as stated above , no Writ will lie against the school, in as much as, Delhi Public School is nei ther State nor instrumentality of the State or any agency of State and/or local or other authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of Ind ia. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

13. The respondent further contended that it is absolutely incorrect to say that the petitioner’s son was suffering from various ailments as a resul t he could not perform well to get A1 Grade. According to the respondent, the pe titioner’s son is studying since class-VI i.e. from 2004-05 in Delhi Public Scho ol, Guwahati but, he was not found to be extraordinary brilliant, who would have scored A1 Grade if his health have not effected him. The result of the petition er’s son, since Class-VI to Pre-Board, would show that he was below average stud ent.

14. The respondent’s counsel by drawing attention of the Court to th e following marks obtained by the petitioner’s son submitted that on bare perusa l of marks sheet would show that petitioner’s son obtained subject wise Grade, G rade Point and percentage of marks, which did not reach the required Bench mark, for admission in Commerce Stream of the respondent’s school: Grade Grade point Percentage of Marks Subject English Hindi Course Mathematic Science Social Science C1 B1 B1 B2 B2 06 08 08 07 07 57% 76% 76%

66.5%

68.4%

66.5% CGPA =

7.2 =

15. Respondent counsel submitted that Delhi Public School, Guwahati including the teachers take utmost care of its student so that they are provided with quality education and trained in extra-circular activities to make a good citizen. However, the students and parents have to give effort to shine and to d o good results in the examination and the petitioner’s son having passed CBSE Xt h examination applied for his admission in Class XI Commerce Stream, wherein he gave the subject combinations as follows:- (i) , (v) Mathematics, (vi) Physical Education. English, (ii) Accountancy, (iii) Business Studies, (iv) Entrepreneurship

16. In view of the Bye-Laws and Guidelines of CBSE and in view of gu idelines of Delhi Public School, Guwahati as the petitioner’s son secured Grade C1 in English and Grade B1 in Mathematics, he was not entitled to admission in c ommerce stream with the aforesaid combinations. It may be relevant to mention herein that as per admission guide lines in Commerce stream of the respondent school, a student securing B2 Grade(6 0% marks in all subjects) may also apply, for admission but he must necessarily qualify the Entrance Test. If the student is opting for Maths, he must qualify t he Entrance Test for Main Maths. However, if the student from any Board is optin g for Mathematics as a subject, he/she must have A2 Grade(80% marks in Math) and students from SEBA must have 80% marks in Advance Mathematics. As the petitione r’s son obtained C1 Grade in English, i.e. 57% marks and B1 grade in Maths, he w as not even entitled to sit in the Entrance test for seeking admission, in any o f the streams, more particularly with the aforesaid combination. It is stated on behalf of the respondent school that considering that the petitioner’s son was the student of Delhi Public School, Guwahati, and on insistence of his parents h e was allowed to sit in Entrance Examination, for admission in Commerce Stream w ith aforesaid combination. The Entrance Test was held on 08.06.2010, for the sub ject English and Maths. The petitioner’s son secured 21.5 out of 50 i.e. 43% in English and 13 out of 50 i.e. 26% in Maths in the Entrance Test. The School Auth orities considering his marks obtained in CBSE Class X in English and Maths as w ell as in the entrance in the said subjects did not find him suitable to admit h im in the Commerce Steam with the aforesaid combinations. Accordingly, on 11.06. 2010, the petitioner’s son was allowed to be admitted in Arts Stream keeping in view that he was a student of Delhi Public School, Guwahati. 17. The respondents stated that if the petitioner’s son would have b een a student of any other school either from CBSE or SEBA Board, he would not e ven be admitted in Arts Stream, as per the admission policy of the respondent’s school. The petitioner’s son, accordingly, took admission in Arts Stream on 16.0 6.2010. The petitioner by her application dated 17.06.2010 requested to transfer him from Arts to Commerce, however, the School authority had refused in view of facts narrated above. It may be pertinent to mention herein that as stated by the resp 18. ondent-School admission in any of the stream is based on the merit of the studen t concerned and one cannot be allowed admission to a particular stream on the ba sis of insistence of the student and parents to fulfill their choice and willing ness. The respondents also denied to have received any representation dated 05.0 6.2010 submitted by the petitioner addressed to the School authority. The respondent’s school stated that the students from outside th 19. e school has been given admission in the commerce stream but marks of those stud ents were higher and they have been admitted in compliance with admission guidel ines of Delhi Public School, Guwahati and stated that it is also absolutely inco rrect to say that the students who has opted for residential accommodation of th e school had been given admission in the school in the stream of their choice. H owever, in reply to the above contention, the petitioner did not come forward wi th any specific instance of such discrimination as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent-School contended that though, the petitioner’s 20. son was admitted in the school in the Arts Stream with the combination of subjec ts English, Political Science, Economic, Geography and Physical Education, but h e did not attended the school since 12.07.2010. The respondents stated that the petitioner’s son has already taken admission in Hindustani Kendriya Vidyalaya, G uwahati, suppressing the fact that he had taken admission in Arts Stream of the respondent-school and was prosecuting his studies. 21. Further more, the respondent-School is run by a Society namely, Delhi Public School Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 18 60 as a Private Unaided School and it is managed by a Managing Committee. The re spondent Delhi Public School either at Guwahati or at any other place is affilia ted to Central Board of Secondary Education(in short (cid:28)CBSE (cid:29)) in terms of Affilia tion Bye-Laws if CBSE, as amended from time to time, providing with the norms of affiliation and other related matters. In the aforesaid Affiliation Bye-Laws of CBSE (cid:28) Kendriya Vidalaya (cid:29) is defined as a school run by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sang athan, an autonomous Organisation under the Ministry of Human Resource Developme nt of the Government of India, whereas (cid:28)Private Unaided School (cid:29), is defined as a school run by a society/trust/Company registered under section 25 of the Compan ies Act, 1956, duly constituted and registered under the provision of Central/St ate Acts not getting any regular Grant-in-Aid from any Government source(s). The Kendriya Vidyalaya being a separate autonomous Organization, and Delhi Public S chool being a Private Unaided School, they are not guided by Rules, Regulations and Guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya. In my view, the admission guideline presc ribed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for admission in Class XI cannot applicabl e for the respondent Delhi Public School since neither such Guideline has been s hown to have been accepted and followed by the respondent school nor any law or rule binds them to follow the rules. On the other hand, the Guideline for admis sion issued by the respondent No.3, appears to have been prescribed on rational basis, so as to attract the better talents in every stream for improvement and d evelopment of skill and proficiency in the subject of study to serve the greater public interest.

22. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Apex Court by referring the decision in Payal Gupta’s (supra) observed in Principal, Kendr iya Vidyalaya and Others vs. Saurabh Chaudhary and Others (supra) that (cid:28)the Scho ol may of course give him the stream/course that may appear to be most suitable for him on the basis of the prescribed cut-off marks (cid:29). Learned counsel for the respondent School submitted that the Delhi Public School, Guwahati has done the same thing with regard to the petitioner’s son as has been observed by the Hon’b le Apex Court’s directive in paragraph 18 of the above referred case, by giving him admission in Arts Stream which is most suitable stream on the basis of merit and cut off marks.

23. In Principal, Cambridge School v. Payal Gupta, (1995) 5 SCC 51 2, Hon’ble Supreme court observed as follows: (cid:28) & & &.. It may, however, be pointed out that it is common knowledge that once a student is given an admission in any educational institution by making an appl ication in the manner prescribed by Rule 135, he is not required to submit fresh application forms after he passes a class for his admission to the next higher class. Once a student is given admission in any educational institution the sam e continues class after class until he leaves the school. In these facts and cir cumstances it is difficult to accept that after a student passed his tenth class of a public examination his admission to the next higher class i.e. eleventh cl ass would be a fresh admission or readmission. & & & & & & & & & &

8. Now coming to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 145 whi ch is the sheet-anchor of the appellant’s case, we do not find anything in the s aid rule which contemplates or requires fresh admission or readmission of a stud ent in the same school after he passes an examination from the said school. That the class X examination is a public examination does not make any difference. T he question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school f or purposes of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes f or admission in some other institution. The question of admission test on the ba sis of result in a particular class will not be taken into account in the case o f a student of the same school who passes the public examination. Learned counse l for the appellant was unable to produce or show any provision in the Act or th e Rules which specifically contemplates that readmission or fresh admission is n ecessary to every next higher class after a student passes out a particular clas s nor could he show any provision of law authorising the head of an educational institution to prescribe a cut-off level of marks for continuance of further stu dies in higher class in the same school by a student who passes a public examina tion.

24. In Kendriya Vidyalaya v. Saurabh Chaudhary, (2009) 1 SCC 794, Hon’ble Supreme Court analyzing and following the decision rendered in Payal Gup ta (supra) held that one can have no objection to a school laying down c ut-off marks for selection of suitable stream/course for a student giving due re gard to his/her aptitude as reflected from the Class X marks where there are mor e than one stream. But it would be quite unreasonable and unjust to throw out a student from the school because he failed to get the cut-off marks in the Class X examination. After all the school must share at least some responsibility for the poor performance of its student and should help him in trying to do better i n the next higher class. The school may of course give him the stream/course tha t may appear to be most suitable for him on the basis of the prescribed cut-off marks. The relevant extract of the decision reads as follows: (cid:28)17. Reading the 2004 and the 2007 provisions together would make it clear that any preference in favour of the school’s own students that might have been assum ed earlier has now been provided for expressly. But that alone, as we see in the present case does not prevent the school from denying admission to one of its o wn students on the ground that he/she failed to secure the cut-off marks in the Class X CBSE examination. 18. One can have no objection to a school laying down cut-off marks for selectio n of suitable stream/course for a student giving due regard to his/her aptitude as reflected from the Class X marks where there are more than one stream. But it would be quite unreasonable and unjust to throw out a student from the school b ecause he failed to get the cut-off marks in the Class X examination. After all the school must share at least some responsibility for the poor performance of i ts student and should help him in trying to do better in the next higher class. The school may of course give him the stream/course that may appear to be most s uitable for him on the basis of the prescribed cut-off marks. 19. In the present case, it would have been perfectly open to the appellants to offer admission to the boy, Saurabh Chaudhary in Class XI in streams/courses oth er than Science stream with Mathematics on the basis of the prescribed cut-off l evel of marks, had such courses been available in Central School No. 2, AFS, Tam baram. But this school has only Science stream with Mathematics for Classes XI a nd XII. The decision in Payal1 forbids the school from turning down a student be cause he/she failed to get the cut-off level of marks for admission to Class XI. As a result of this fortuitous circumstance the boy must get admission in Class XI in Central School No. 2, AFS, Tambaram in Science stream with Mathematics. (cid:29)

25. As already stated, it is neither a case where the petitioner’s s on was discriminated and denied admission in Commerce Stream of the respondent-S chool, nor students similarly situated with the petitioner’s son had been given admission in ’Commerce Stream’ of the School. If that would have been the case, there would be no difficulty for granting equitable relief to the petitioner’s s on. On the other hand, a specific averment has been made by the respondent-Schoo l that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Saurabh Chaudhary (supra) p etitioner’s son had been given admission in Arts stream even though he had faile d to secure the cut off marks even for admission in Arts Stream. This being the position, petitioner cannot raise any grievances at all, since he has been give n admission in the School. In such a situation, if relief is granted to the peti tioner, it would amount to injustice to other students, who were similarly situa ted with him and denied admission in the XIth class for similar reasons. 26. In the result, relying on the decision and observation of the Ho n’ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya v. Saurabh Chaudhary (supra) as the pe titioner’s son has already been given admission in Arts Stream of the respondent School, which was found to be most suitable for him on the basis of the cut off marks. Thus, the above action of the respondent-School cannot be faulted. The re is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Parties are aske d to bear their own costs.