Point of Law: Education Law - Non-payment of fees - Mere presence of CBSE as a respondent in petition is not sufficient to enable this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. The Court may decline to entertain a writ petition, if it comes to conclusion that it is not the most appropriate Court for purpose

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. The petitioner is a minor child. At the time the writ petition was filed, she was studying in Class VII in the respondent no. 3 - Indirapuram Public School, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh [“the School”] which is affiliated to respondent no. 1/Central Board of Secondary Education [“CBSE”]. The petition has been filed through the petitioner’s father, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, who has also appeared throughout in person.

2. The reliefs sought in the petition are as follows:-

“1. to issue an writ of mandamus to the respondent no. 1 to allow Petitioner to appear in Secondary and senior secondary Examinations conducted by respondent without any level of discrimination in examination or result with respect to regular students, failing which the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

2. to issue such further order/s to respondents as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. On a reading of the petition, as filed, it appears that the principal grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the new fee structure as introduced by the School from the academic year 2017-18 onwards. The case made out in the petition is that on 02.04.2018, the School denied permission to the petitioner to attend classes on account of non-payment of fees which, according to the petitioner, was charged arbitrarily, without consulting the parents of the students of the School, and without giving any reasons for the same. Several other allegations have also been levelled against the School.

4. On 27.05.2019, this Court issued notice in the petition while recording a prima facie finding that the petition raised serious issues of territorial jurisdiction, as the grievance of the petitioner was essentially against the School, which is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was further noted that the pleadings in the petition did not relate to the reliefs sought.

5. Even while the issue of territorial jurisdiction remained pending, the petitioner filed several interlocutory applications in these proceedings.

6. By an order dated 27.11.2019, the Court directed the School to readmit the petitioner and to permit her to attend classes, subject to the deposit of fees and annual charges demanded by the School with the Registry of the Court. It was recorded in the order dated 23.12.2019 that, according to the School, an amount of Rs. 2,32,833 was due towards fees for the academic sessions 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, and that Mr. Singh had deposited an amount of Rs. 79,560/- as fee for the academic session 2017-18, since the petitioner was home-schooled since Class VII. As per the School, the petitioner had not attended any classes or qualified in any examination for Class VII, due to which she could not have been permitted to attend classes for Class VIII at that stage. By the said order, the Court directed the School to conduct an examination for the petitioner for Class VII, to which Mr. Singh agreed.

7. By a further order dated 10.02.2020, this Court passed directions to the petitioner and the School, with regard to the conduct of the examination for the petitioner, to the following effect:-

“2. After having heard the father of the petitioner child, who appears in person, as well as Ms. Aishwarya Rao, who appears for respondent No. 3 school, it is agreed by both sides that the applications can be disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner child will appear in Grade VII examination, which commences from 17.2.2020.

(ii) In case the petitioner child passes Grade VII examination, respondent No. 3 school will hold Grade VIII examination for the petitioner child on 7.4.2020.

(iii) In case the petitioner child clears Grade VIII examination, she will be upgraded to Grade IX.

3. Furthermore, the Registry is directed to release Rs. 79,560/- along with accrued interest to respondent No. 3 school, which was deposited by the petitioner’s father (i.e. Mr. Shailendra