Writ petitions can challenge actions of private unaided schools if they impact constitutional rights, but no such infringement was found in this case.

JUDGMENT :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :

A. A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 3^rd respondent to admit minor petitioner No.2 to its school forth with without any hurdles in LKG grade.

B. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble High Court deems fit under the circumstances in the interest of justice.

2. The grievance to the petitioners is that an application has been made for admission of petitioner No.2/minor with respondent No.3/private unaided school. Though an intimation had been received by the petitioners that petitioner No.2 had been selected and was called upon to come along with the parents on 28.02.2025 from 01:30 to 03:30 p.m. to meet the Principal and confirm the seat, subsequently, the website indicated a change with a new intimation stating “verification pending.”

3. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know and were informed by respondent No.3/school that there was a system glitch in the software of respondent No.3/school and as such, a similar communication had been sent to 61 other students and thereafter, the same was rectified.

4. The sanctioned admission in respondent No.3/school being 150 students, the said admission has been completed among the eligible students. It is in that background that the petitioners are before this Court contending that once the petitioners had received intimation that the petitioner No.2 had been admitted, he is required to be admitted in respondent No.3/school.

5. Upon notice having been issued to respondents, respondent No.3 has entered an appearance through counsel. The preliminary objection raised by respondent No.3 is that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as respondent No.3 is a private unaided school and a writ cannot be issued against a private unaided school. On merits, the submission made is that, with 150 seats available, all 150 seats have been filled. The intimation, which had been sent, was wrongly sent to 61 students. If all the 61 students were to be considered, it would exceed the sanctioned admission strength of the school and it is in that background that respondent No.3/school could not admit petitioner No.2 to his school, though there is no particular intention on the part of respondent No.3/school not to admit petitioner No.2 to this school.

6. In reply thereto, Shri Anwarali D.Nadaf., learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there is no particular embargo as regards the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of a private unaided school. His submission, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 23.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No.11229/2024 between Master Jai Kumar Through his Father Manish Kumar versus Aadharshila, Vidya Peeth and others is that education is an aspect involving a public element. Any school, even if it is an unaided school, would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, and as such, this Court would be entitled to conduct judicial review of any action taken by the school. On that basis, he submits that the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.3 is not maintainable.

7. Heard Shri Anwarali D.Nadaf., learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Akshay Katti., learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri P.N.Hatti., learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2-State.

8. The points that would arise for consideration are:

i. Whether the present petition filed by the petitioners against a private unaided school is maint