Back
1998 Supreme(Del) 175
High Court Of Delhi
MASTER AJAY KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - Respondent
Civil Writ 4217 of 1997
Decided On : 03/06/1998
N.R.Nath, RAMAN KAPOOR
A student cannot be detained in Class X for failing in the terminal examination and the permission of the Chairman, CBSE is required for the detention of a student.
Headnote:
DETENTION - CLASS X - PROMOTION - CONDITION - WITHDRAWAL FROM SCHOOL - ILLEGAL - WAIVER - REGULAR STUDENT - ELIGIBILITY - CBSE EXAMINATION - DETENTION - GRAVE REASONS - CHAIRMAN'S PERMISSION - NOT OBTAINED - ILLEGAL - PROMOTION TO CLASS X - DEEMED - ELIGIBILITY TO APPEAR IN CLASS X EXAMINATION - NOTWITHSTANDING FAILURE IN CLASS IX - GRACE MARKS - ESTOPPEL - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 - EXERCISED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a student of Class X in Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi, was detained in Class X during the 1997-98 academic year. He challenged the detention on the grounds that he was promoted to Class X after passing Class IX, that the detention was illegal and arbitrary, and that it violated his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had failed in Mathematics in Class IX but was promoted to Class X on the condition that he would withdraw from the school if he failed in the first term examination in Class X. The petitioner did not pass the first term examination, but the Principal allowed him to continue in Class X instead of reverting him back to Class IX. The Court held that the Principal could not impose such a condition on the petitioner and that the petitioner should be deemed to have been promoted to Class X regularly.
Issues: 1. Whether the Principal could impose a condition on the petitioner that he would withdraw from the school if he failed in the first term examination in Class X? 2. Whether the petitioner should be deemed to have been promoted to Class X regularly? 3. Whether the petitioner was eligible to appear in the Class X examination conducted by CBSE? 4. Whether the detention of the petitioner was illegal and unjust?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there is no provision for any conditional promotion and that the undertaking extracted from the petitioner's father was quite unnecessary, unlawful, and unenforceable. The Principal could not have imposed the condition or accepted the undertaking that the petitioner would be withdrawn from the school if he did not pass in the first term examination in Class X. 2. The Court held that the petitioner should be deemed to have been promoted to Class X regularly since the Principal had allowed him to continue in Class X even after he had failed in the first term examination and the father refused to withdraw him from the school. 3. The Court held that the petitioner was eligible to appear in the Class X examination conducted by CBSE since he was deemed to have been promoted to Class X regularly and that the shortage of marks in the examination of Class IX could not be held against him. 4. The Court held that the detention of the petitioner was illegal and unjust since it was based on invalid reasons and the Chairman, CBSE had not given any permission for the detention of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned detention order, and directed the respondents to forward necessary papers and documents to CBSE forthwith so that the petitioner could appear in the Class X Examination to be conducted in March, 1998.
( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is against the action of the Principal of the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi in detaining the petitioner in Class X during 1997-98 academic year.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he is a student of Class X in the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi a recognised unaided school. His father is a Tabla Teacher in the said school. The petitioner has been studying in the said school from the very beginning. Though he had failed in Mathematics in Class IX he was promoted to Class X. There were also other students who had failed in various subjects in Class X during 1996-97. Some had failed in as many as four out of five subjects. When they were summarily promoted, the petitioner was given promotion by respondent No. 3, the Principal of the School, only after much persuasion a pleadings. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 had been forcing the petitioner to withdraw from the school on the ground of his poor performance in the first terminal test. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of a letter dated 3. 9. 1997 written by the Principal (Annexure-P2) to the parent of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had scored only 14% marks in the first test and that he was failing miserably and requesting the parent to withdraw the petitioner from the school immediately as per his undertaking. The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the letter dated 16. 9. 1997 (Annexure-P3) written by the parent to the Principal stating that there was no question of his taking action on the alleged undertaking said to have been executed by him. It was also stated in the said letter that the continuation of his child in the school was not a matter of contract as his continuation was dictated by law. It was further stated that the child could not be asked to withdraw from the school on the ground that he scored a low percentage of marks. Reference was also made in the letter to some judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner s father, being an employee of the school, is in occupation of the staff quarters since 1992. On account of his mother s illness the petitioner s father had been requesting for a change of the quarters but respondent No. 3 insisted that the petitioner should be withdrawn from the school first. It is stated that the petitioner s father refused to accept the said condition and as a result the petitioner s father has been subjected to victimisation by respondent No. 3. By a letter dated 18. 9. 1997 of the Principal, the petitioner s father was informed that there had been flaw in appointing him as Tabla teacher on regular basis since there was no certificate in his file to show that he had attended any school upto any level. It was also pointed out in the letter that the date of birth given in the file of the petitioner s father did not appear to be supported by any acceptable document and that there was no evidence of any qualifications for teaching Tabla. The petitioner s father was, therefore, directed to produce to documents to prove his eligibility for appointment as a Tabla teacher on regular basis. The petitioner s father replied through a latter dated 24. 7. 1997 stating that he had submitted the original certificates and attested copies within period of fifteen days of acceptance of the appointment and that the said original certificates have been in the custody of the school since 1985. He also enclosed with the said letter photocopies of the qualification certificate and the date of birth certificate. Then the petitioner s father received the letter dated 24. 9. 1997 (Annexure-P7) from respondent No. 3 informing as follows:
"your son Ajay Kumar has failed in all the subjects at First Terminal Examination. In Class IX also in the final assessment he had failed. Since his performance for two years running has been extremely poor he has been detained in Class X during 1997-98 sessi
