Advocates:
['M/S P VIJENDRAN', '', 'V CHITHRA', 'M/S G NAGARAJAN', '', 'T JEEVANANTHAM', 'PVT NOTICE PERMITTED', '', 'PROOF FILED', 'M/S S MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM', 'M ASHWIN', 'P MENAGA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.08.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

WP.No.13878 of 2018

N.Kalyana Sundaram

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Regional Officer,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

New No.3, Old No.1630-A,

J-Block, 16th Main Road,

Anna Nagar, West, Chennai - 40.

2. The Principal,

Hindu Colony Chellammal Vidyalaya,

Senior Secondary School,

Nanganallur, Chennai - 61.

...Respondents

PRAYER:

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus

to direct the respondents, in particularly the 2nd respondent to

consider the circumstance of the case and future of the

petitioner's son, K.Srikar and to give the admission to him for

XI Std., in the academic year 2018-2019.

For petitioner

: Mr.G.Saravana Kumar

For Respondents

: Mr.G.Nagarajan, for R1

Mr.M.Ashwin, for R2

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of

Mandamus to direct the respondents, in particularly, the 2nd

respondent to consider the circumstance of the case and future

of the petitioner's son, K.Srikar, to give him admission in XI

Std., for the academic year 2018-2019.

2. The petitioner is the step father and guardian of one

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Srikar and he was studying in the second respondent-School

from fourth standard. The second respondent School is under the

control of Central Board of Education. After the petitioner's

son passed X standard with 347 marks out of 600, he approached

the second respondent-School for XI standard, but they even

refused to give application. It is stated by the petitioner that

the School was re-opened on 06.06.2018 and his son was prevented

by the second respondent. Since the petitioner's son was

studying in the second respondent School from 4th standard, he

opted to join the same School for XI standard. But admission was

denied. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this writ

petition mainly on the ground that the Right to Education, which

is a fundamental right of the Children under Article 21-A of the

Constitution of India, is offended / infringed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied

upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal,

Cambrdige School and another vs. Payal Gupa (Ms) and other,

reported in 1995 (5) SCC 512, wherein in similar case, the

Supreme Court has expressed the following view:

"8. Now coming to the provisions of sub-rule (1) of

Rule 145 which is the sheet-anchor of the appellant's

case, we do not find anything in the said rule which

contemplates or requires fresh admission or readmission

of a student in the same school after he passes an

examination from the said school. That the class X

examination is a public examination does not make any

difference. The question of an admission test or the

result in a particular class or school for purposes of

admission would arise only if a student of one

institution goes for admission in some other

institution. The question of admission test on the

basis of result in a particular class will not be taken

into account in the case of a student of the same

school who passes the public examination. Learned

counsel for the appellant was unable to produce or show

any provision in the Act or the Rules which

specifically contemplates that readmission or fresh

admission is necessary to every next higher class after

a student passes out a particular class nor could he

show any provision of law authorising the head of an

educational institution to prescribe a cut-off level of

marks for continuance of further studies in higher

class in the same school by a student who passes a

public examination."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon

the judgment of the Supreme Court