MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 20. 7. 2005 in WP (C) No. 11718/2005.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 3 ) THE appellant is an unaided private recognised school in Delhi and the writ petitioner is a student of the said school having joined it in 1993 in Nursery Class and had passed Class X examination in May 2005 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) securing an overall percentage of 65. 2% marks with 60% marks in science and mathematics. The writ petitioner applied for admission in science stream in Class XI in the appellant school, but has been offered commerce stream without mathematics. It is alleged by the writ petitioner that as many as 90 seats in the science stream are still lying vacant and hence, the writ petitioner should be admitted in one of those seats. However, the writ petitioner was informed by the Principal by a letter dated 4. 7. 2005 that he cannot be admitted to the science stream as he did not have the requisite marks in class X in mathematics and science. In the case of the writ petitioner, N. Singh, his rank in the school is 238/299 and in the case of another writ petitioner, B. Dhami, the rank is 241/299.

( 4 ) THE stand of the appellant is that the percentage for admission in science stream was initially notified as 80%, but ultimately students having 70% marks in science and mathematics have been allotted science stream in so far as internal students are concerned. In the case of external students the initially notified cut off percentage of marks was 90%, but subsequently the last admission was made at 78% in the science stream. Since the writ petitioners (who were internal candidates) secured much less than 70%, they were not admitted in science stream.

( 5 ) THE respondents (writ petitioners) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal, Cambridge school v. Payal Gupta (AIR 1996 SC 118) and the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petition has also relied on the aforesaid decision.

( 6 ) THE learned single Judge in his judgment observed that A School exists for its students and not vice-versa; it is not an industry. The learned Judge further went on to say in paragraph 6 of the judgment as follows:- there are some educational institutions who consider only results to be of importance. In doing so they forget that their existence is for education and not for results. With due respect to the learned Judge, we are not in agreement with these observations. Good schools are certainly concerned about their reputation and their image in society, and for this purpose the results are certainly of great importance.

( 7 ) THE learned single Judge was of the view that since seats in Class XI in science stream were still available for being filled up by the students from the school itself, the school should be directed to permit the writ petitioner to join science stream in Class XI. Without profound respect to the learned single Judge, there are several flaws in his reasoning in the impugned judgment.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the Appellant did not file any counter affidavit to the writ petition before the learned single judge. However, the Division Bench considering the appeal on 8th August, 2005 was of the view that the averments in the writ petition necessitated a counter affidavit. Accordingly, with the consent of parties we permitted the appellant to file a counter affidavit to the writ petition so that at least the pleadings are complete.

( 9 ) IN paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the principal of the school it has been stated that in over 50 years of the history of the institution it has created a name for itself in the field of education and has produced large number of successful citizens in various walks of life. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is averred that the procedure being adopted by the scho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document