Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir & Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ.
Master Aarav Goswami (Minor) - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another - Respondents
CWP No. 14 of 2015-B
Decided on: 09.01.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr.Keshav Thakur and Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr.Sharwan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr.Anup Rattan, Mr.Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 1.
The judgment established the autonomy of private unaided institutions in admitting students, the right of minority unaided institutions to establish and administer schools, and the limitations on court interference in admissions to private schools.
Headnote:
Education - Admission to Private School - 34 U.S. 483 (1954), P.A. Inamdar & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2005) 6 SCC 537, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC, 481 - The court discussed the importance of education, the autonomy of private unaided institutions, and the right to establish and administer schools. It highlighted the freedom of minority unaided institutions in admitting students and the limitations on interference by the State. The judgment also emphasized the necessity for fair, transparent, and non-exploitative admissions processes in private schools.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a child seeking admission to a private school, was denied admission due to limited seats, despite not lacking in any aspect. The petitioner challenged the school's decision, arguing that admissions should be based on merit and made in a fair and transparent manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the private unaided school had the right to establish, run, and administer the school, including the right to admit students. It concluded that the school's rejection of the petitioner's admission was not arbitrary or capricious, and there was no evidence of malafides. The court also emphasized that restrictive measures on admissions in private unaided schools run by minorities should be through legislation, and not within the court's domain.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of admission to a private school, the autonomy of private unaided institutions in admitting students, and the requirement for fair and transparent admissions processes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the recognition of the autonomy of private unaided institutions, the right of minority unaided institutions to establish and administer schools, and the limitations on court interference in matters of admissions to private schools.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. All pending applications were disposed of.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.
Education occupies an important and sacred place in our Constitution and culture. It is a tool for betterment of civil institutions, protection of our civil liberties and path to an informed and questioning citizenry.
2. As far back as in the year 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren of the U.S. Supreme Court stressed upon the importance of education in Brown Vs. School Board of Topeka, 34 U.S. 483 (1954):-
“Education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments….. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today, it (education) is the principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life, if he is denied the opportunity of education.”
3. It is probably because of the quality education that respondent No. 2 is imparting, that the petitioner has approached this Court for the second time claiming in this petition the same and similar relief, which had been sought by him in CWP No. 9035 of 2014, which was dismissed by this Court vide its decision dated 3.12.2014 in the following terms:-
“After hearing for a while, Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition along with all CMPs with liberty to seek appropriate remedy at appropriate stage. His statement is taken on record.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn along with all pending applications, with liberty as prayed for.”
4. The petitioner is a child who had sought admission in the St. Edward School (Simla Catholic Diocese) and underwent the usual screening procedure, but could not get admission. Vide letter dated 28th October, 2014, the father of the petitioner was informed that the petitioner could not be selected for admission to class Nursery, not because he was lacking anything, but because of limited seats. It is apt to reproduce the letter in its entirety, which reads thus:-
“Dear Mr. Anurag Goswami,
I regret to inform you that your son Aarav Goswami bearing Reg. No. 237 has not been selected for Admission to CLASS NURSERY.
This does not mean that your child is lacking in anything, but we have very limited seats and the applicants were too many. Kindly do not approach anybody for recommendations for admission.
Thanking you and God Bless.”
5. The petitioner has assailed this action of respondent No. 2 on the ground that the school has arbitrarily rejected and denied admission to the petitioner because the petitioner did not lack in anything. It is further stated that the education institutions including private schools have to follow the merit alone and they are further required to ensure that the admissions are made in a fair and transparent manner. The respondent cannot be permitted to adopt pick and choose policy.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case.
6. Indisputably, respondent No. 2 is a minority unaided institution and, therefore, has a right to establish and administer its institution. Such institutions enjoy total freedom and even the State cannot interfere up to the level of undergraduate education as recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2005) 6 SCC 537.
“133. So far as the minority unaided institutions are concerned to admit students being one of the components of “right to establish and administer an institution”, the State cannot interfere therewith. Upto the level of undergraduate education, the minority
unaided educational institutions enjoy total freedom.”
7. Now in so far as the contention of the petitioner that the admissions to the Nursery class were required to be made on merit is concerned, we are afraid that it is not possible at the school level more particularly at the nursery level to grant admissions on the basis of meri
