J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

CAV 96/2024

1. Since the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

2. Accordingly, this caveat stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 12603/2024 (for exemption)

3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

4. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

LPA 179/2024 & CM APPL. 12602/2024

5. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 26th February, 2024, passed in W.P.(C) 2760/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition in limine, holding that there is no provision in the order dated 9th October, 2019, issued by GNCTD, Directorate of Education (‘DoE’), Exam Branch, Delhi, titled as ‘Strengthening Assessment and Evaluation Practices and Promotion Policy for Classes IXth to XIIth with effect from academic Sessions 2019-2020’ (‘attendance policy’), which permits a student with less than 50% attendance to appear in final examinations of classes IXth and XIth.

6. The Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and are studying in Class IXth and XIth respectively of Respondent No.1 - Sovereign School, Rohini, Delhi (‘the School’). The Appellants herein were barred from appearing in their respective class examination on account of shortage of attendance and in these circumstances, the writ petition was filed seeking issuance of directions to the School to permit the Appellants to participate in examinations commencing from 1st March, 2024.

Submissions of counsel for parties

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties state that a clerical correction has been carried out by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to the effect that Appellants are ‘brothers’ and not ‘brother and sister’ in relation.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellants states that learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that Appellants were bullied and traumatized by certain students of the School, which in turn gravely affected the Appellants’ mental health and thus, their attendance. He states that various representations were made to the School in this regard, however, no action has been taken against the other students. In this regard, he refers to the representations dated 14th December, 2023 and 13th February, 2024, made by the Appellants’ father to the School.

8.1. He states that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that there is ambiguity in sub-clause (h) of Clause 18 (pertaining to ‘attendance criteria’) of the attendance policy, wherein it is stated that “If the shortage of attendance at the time of the annual examination, for whatever reason or reasons, is more than 15%, i.e., the actual attendance of the student is less than 60% of the total attendance during the session, condonation of the shortage of attendance shall not be allowed, the student shall not be eligible to appear at the annual examination and shall be detained except in such circumstances as mentioned in the instruction.” He states that no specific instructions have been provided in the attendance policy, as per which the students shall be eligible to appear for annual examinations when their attendance is less than 60%. He states that the said Clause 18(h) of the attendance policy does not mention any window of 50% to 60% for the purpose of condonation of shortage of attendance.

9. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 – the School states that the Appellants have very less attendance for their respective academic sessions. He states that the parents of the Appellants were duly informed of the said fact, as is evident from the letters dated 6th September, 2023, 10th October, 2023, and 1st November, 2023, issued by the School informing the parents that Appellant No.2 is having short attendance. In this regard, he also refers to a letter dated 06th November, 2023, setting out the attendance of Appellant No.2 for the months of April, 2023 to October, 2023 as under and stating that that Appellant No.2 (as on dat