High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not issuing the Transfer certificate of minor son Master Aarav sundeep, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and violative of Article 14 of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to issue forthwith rransfer certificate of minor son lVlaster Aarav Sundeep. 7 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to issue Transfer certificate of minor son Master Aarav Sundeep forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIKRAM RAGI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SETTY RAVI TEJA The Court made the following: ORDER I i I j i I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR No.3 2 9 of 2O24 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2, Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.3, and Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record. 2' ,This writ petition is fired on 20.17.2024 assairing the action of the 3'd respondent in not issuing Transfer ceftificate (TC) to the petitioner,s ward, who is aged seven years and studying in 2nd standard in the 3'd respondent's school, on the ground that the child is required to travel 30 kilometers for attending the school, due to which, he is continuously becoming sick, thereby, requiring medical attention. 3. Petitioner further contends that in spite of approaching the 3.d respondent for issuance of rc to enabre the petitioner to admit her ward into a school nearby her residence, the 3.d respondent is not issuing the TC, which action of the 3d respondent it is contended is highly illegal and arbitrary and also contrary to Section 5 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, .the Act). 2

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3'd respondent submits that the petitioner's ward was admitted into their school by the 4th respondent and he has objected to the request made by the petitioner for issuance of TC' and as such' the 3'c respondent is faced with catch_22 situation, whereby the said respondent could not consider the request made by the petitioner' Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4n respondent 5. submits that there are matrimonial disputes pending between the petitioner and the 4h respondent and the petitioner had filed GWOP No'25 of 2024before the Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, including the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition and the said GWOP is pending for orders' Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent 6. Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand' submits that as per the academic calendar issued by the Government of Telangana' the academic session' for the year 2024-25 would be over by the end of March' 2025' and as such, the petitioner and the 4th respondent can seek for issuance of TC at the end of the academic Year'

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged'

8. Of late, it has become a practice for the parents' who are fighting their?ffrimonlal battle, to drag their children into their personal dispute 3 without realizing as to what kind of trauma the children Undergo, including causing disturbance to their studies.

9. This couft dearing with simirar contention in a writ petirion, uide W.P.No.33339 of 2024, had observed therein{that it is unfortunate that whire the lst petitioner and the Brh respondent continue to fight their matrimoniar battre, the chirdren born out of their wedrock are made to suffer, more particularly, when they are in young age and are pursuing their studies, without realizing what passes in the young mindsl 10. Even in the facts of the present case, the petitioner,s ward, who is aged about seven years, is studying in a prestigious international school, which provides for transportation of students in an air_conditioned bus without being exposed to any kind of polution. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner and the 4rh respondent whire admrtting their ward into the 3'd respondent schoor were fury conscious of the distance the chird would have to travel. If the petitioner is so conscious of the travel which the child is required to undertake. it is always open for her to make a choice of not admitting her ward into the internationar schoor or to make alternate arrangements of securing accommodation nearby school. Petitioner instead of adopting such course of action and having admitted her ward into the 3.d respondent school, when both the petitioner and the 4th respondent were riving in harmony, has now fired this writ petition, questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not issuing TC to 4 enable her to secure admission to her ward in another school near to her residence that too at the fag end of the academic year' 11. Further, the petitioner having already sought for similar relief by approaching the concerned Family Court by filing GWOP' could not have approached this Court by flling the present Writ Petition' just three months ahead of the compretion of the academic calendar, instead of seeking for issuance of TC at the end of the academic year' The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in W'P'No'29461 of 2018 dealing with Section 5 of the Act is wholly misplaced' as the said provision only confers right to seek for issuance of TC where the child has completed her elementary education and the school does not provide for fufther education or when child is required to move from one school to another either within the State or outside the State on account of any reason whatsoever' the Head Teacher is immediatelY required to issue TC' 12. ln the facts of the present case' it is not the case of the petitioner that the 3'd respondent school does not prbvide for further education on completion of petitioner's ward elementary education or that the petitioner is required to obtain TC in respect of her ward for moving from one school to another either within the State or other State satisfying the conditions specified in Section 2 of the Act' for her to approach this Court by calling in question the action of the 3'd respondent in not issuing the TC and the \ ::l 1 5 inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in taking action against the 3'd respondent for such non-issuance of TC.

13. Further, as noted above, since the petitioner had sought for issuance of rc on account oF matrimoniar dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and also having approached the concerned Family court by filing GWop and also taking note oF the fact that the present writ Petition has been filed on 20.L1.2024. by which time, the major paft of the academic calendar has been completed, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition as fired is misconceived and is riabre to be dismissed.

14. 15 The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC N OFFICER One CC to SRI VIKRAIVI RAGI, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P.SRIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI SETTY RAVI TEJA, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 A BSR GJP i i I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2010112025 ORDER WP.No.32979 of 2024 1 ? STAT€ o ) C,t +t t 0 [ ttB $25 a * De si,pjc DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t)