Master Singham Through Natural ... vs Directorate Of Education & Anr on 25 March, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Master Singham Through Natural ... vs Directorate Of Education & Anr on 25 March, 2021

Bench: Prateek Jalan

$~92
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 4006/2021

       MASTER SINGHAM THROUGH
       NATURAL GUARDIAN                          ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Vivek Chib, Sr. Advocate with
                            Mr. Vaibhav Sethi, Mr. Vikhyant
                            Oberoi, Ms. Priya Pathonia, Mr.
                            Asif Ahmed, Advocates

                                  versus

    DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.          ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Santosh Tripathi, Advocate for
                           R-1
                           Mr. Siddharth Nath, Advocate for
                           R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

                    ORDER

% 25.03.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid system (physical and virtual hearing).

CM APPL. 12086/2021 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4006/2021 with CM APPL. 12085/2021 (stay)

1. Issue notice. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent no.1, and Mr. Siddharth Nath, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent no.2.

W.P.(C) 4006/2021 Page 1 of 3

2. Counter affidavits may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinders thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

3. The petitioner challenges an order dated 09.02.2021, passed by the respondent no.1/Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, by which his admission into the respondent no.2/School ["the School"] has been cancelled. The Director of Education has come to the conclusion that the petitioner's parents misrepresented their status as belonging to the EWS category, and wrongly secured admission into the School. On the basis of the impugned order of respondent no. 1, the School has also issued a consequential communication dated 15.02.2021 to the father of the petitioner.

4. It is undisputed that this is the third round of litigation between the parties on the same issue. The last round culminated in a judgment dated 07.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8791/2018. The Court inter alia directed the respondents to grant the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and also to give him an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose evidence was being relied upon against him (in paragraphs 49 and 51 of the judgment).

5. It appears from paragraph 11 of the impugned order that the petitioner's father was, in fact, granted a personal hearing before the Director of Education, but the order has been passed by the successor of the officer who granted the personal hearing. Mr. Vivek Chib, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that grant of hearing by one person and passing of an order by another person is impermissible, and relies inter alia upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association. vs. Designated Authority & Ors. (2011) W.P.(C) 4006/2021 Page 2 of 3 2 SCC 258 [paragraphs 83 and 84] and Union of India & Ors. vs. Shiv Raj & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 564 [paragraph 17 to 20] in this connection.

6. It is also evident from paragraph 24 of the impugned order that the decision regarding cancellation of the admission of the petitioner was kept in abeyance for the session 2020-21 by the respondent no.1 itself, in view of the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the closure of schools in Delhi, and to avoid humiliation, disturbance, stress and harassment to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has, in my view, made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim order in the facts and circumstances noted above. Keeping in mind the factors enumerated in paragraph 24 of the impugned order itself, the balance of convenience is also in favour of an interim order being passed in favour of the petitioner. I am satisfied that the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury in the event the status quo is disturbed at this stage.

8. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 09.02.2021 and the impugned communication dated 15.02.2021 issued by the School be kept in abeyance until the next date of hearing.

9. List on 28.05.2021.

PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 25, 2021 'j'/s W.P.(C) 4006/2021 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders