Important Point: The constitutional protection given to a minority institution recognizing their right to establish and administer educational institutions stand on a higher pedestal than the rights conferred upon the child under Right to Education Act, a statute in terms of Article 21A of the Constitution. State, in the present case, is coming forward to provide the child admission in any other neighborhood school upon which the State can impose such obligation.

1. Petitioner in the status of natural guardian being father of Ms.Durva Motewar, is before this Court, seeking direction against the respondents to allow Ms.Durva to continue her future education in the institution of respondent nos.2 and 3 by admitting her to 7th Std to be held in the month of April 2016, and further allow her to complete her studies and examination of 4th and 6th Standard.

2. Other reliefs sought are for a direction directing Respondent no.4 to take action against the respondent nos.2 and 3 to implement the order dated 29th September 2015. The petitioner has sought interim relief to allow Ms.Durva to sit in 7th Std and to give examination of 7th Std to be held in the month of April 2016.

3. The background in which the present Writ Petition is filed is as under :

The respondent no.3 – Lokhandwala Foundation School is an unaided minority institution, and the petitioner admitted his daughter in this school from nursery class. When Ms.Durva was studying in 4th Std, she remained absent for three months during the second term of the school. However, shortage of attendance was condoned and management permitted her to appear for the final examination. The consequences of the same is that she was promoted to 6th Std for the Academic Year 2013-2014.

4. During the Academic year 2013-14, she attended the school between June to August, and abruptly absented from school since 30th August 2013. The petitioner was forced to go to his native place at Nanded along with his family members in order to attend to his family disputes which were pending for a long time. For about 7 months, the entire family stayed at Nanded. During the month of December 2013, petitioner was asked to pay Rs.31,731/as school fees. Then, he explained to them the family difficulties, and informed them that his daughter may not be able to attend school for some days. However, on 24th January 2014, an email was sent to the petitioner, intimating him of removal of Ms.Durva from the register of the school. He informed the school authorities that Ms.Durva was studying at home, and she is capable of attending examination of 5th Std.

5. Only in the month of March 2014, the family disputes came to an end, and the petitioner and his family returned to Mumbai in March 2014. Immediately, he met the Principal of the School on 29th March 2014, and by that time, examination of 5th Std had already commenced from 27th March. Though Principal after discussion, informed the petitioner that after discussing the matter with the management of the school, he could come back to him. Later, she, however, informed him that the Management was not keen to allow his daughter to appear for the examination. Explaining his problem, he sought intervention of the 6th respondent seeking assistance in terms of Right to Education Act, 2009 (for short “RTE Act”). 6th Respondent directed 3rd respondent to promote Ms.Durva Motewar to 6th Std.

6. On 12th June 2014, when 3rd respondent School reopened, in spite of direction to respondent nos.5 and 6 much prior to the reopening of the school, 3rd respondent did not heed to the request of the petitioner to allow his daughter to sit in 6th Std. Again, he had to approach respondent nos.5 and 6 who arranged a joint meeting on 14th July 2014. In the said meeting, 5th respondent explained to the representatives of 3rd respondent the guidelines and the provisions of RTE Act and requested them to allow Ms.Durva to continue her studies without holding her back in 5th Std.

7. In spite of repeated request and persuasion to comply with the directions of Education Department in terms of RTE Act, at last on 13th August 2014, 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that they are ready to admit her only to Class 5. After several attempts for amicable settlement, 6th respondent had to pass an order dated 12th March 2015 directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to allow Ms.Durva to continue her studies from 6th Std for the Academic Year 2014-15. 3rd respondent w