Delhi High Court
Master Gokul Mahana (Minor) Through ... vs Uoi And Others on 28 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1994DELHI320, 1994(28)DRJ563, ILR1994DELHI401, AIR 1994 DELHI 320, (1994) 28 DRJ 563
Author: R. C. Lahoti
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Arun Kumar
ORDER R. C. Lahoti, J.
1. The petitioner a minor student acting through his father has filed this petition on 17-8-1993 seeking a Writ of Certiorari setting aside the order of the respondent No. 3 an educational institution detaining the petitioner in the XI class treating him not entitled to promotion to XII class and writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his studies in XII class and also allow him to appear in CESE Board examination of XII standard.
2. The respondent No. 3. The Army Public School is an educational institution of which the respondent No. 4 is the Principal. The respondent No. 1, UOI has been unnecessarily joined as a parly to the petition presumably under a misapprehension of the petitioner that the UOI (through its Department of Education) had something to do with the institution. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, through Director of Education also appears to be an unnecessary party in view of the stand taken by the other respondent that it was not receiving any grant in aid from the education department.
3. The petitioner is a civilian. The educational institution respondent No. 3 though primarily intended to cater to the educational needs of children of the army personnel accommodates children of civilians also. The petitioner was admitted in the school right from K.G. class and had continued to prosecute has studies till class XI. In the board examination of Class X he had secured 56% marks. In March 1993 he had appeared for class XI examination but he could obtain an aggregate of 35% marks only. He was allowed to take retest in two subjects i.e. mathematics and economics. The result of the retest was placed under consideration and ultimately he was declared to have been detained in class XI in view of his having not successfully cleared the retest.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the new Principal of the institution was not behaving properly, more so with the civilians. The parents of the petitioner had lodged complaint of the Principal with the management and that had further annoyed him.
According to the petitioner he was deliberately detained in spite of his having good academic records for the previous years. The petitioner has also complained of discrimination as other students similarly situated as the petitioner were either allowed promotion to class XII or were issued transfer certificates entitling them to admission in class XII in other educational institutions of their own choice.
5. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have in their written statement denied all the material averment made by the petitioner. According to them the educational institution maintains higher standards of education. The students who take the board examination are carefully screened at class IX and class XI and if they. are not likely to do well at the board examination, are detained based on their performance over the year. As per existing policy promotion to higher class from class IX and class XI are granted to students securing 40% in aggregate and 40% in individual subjects. In the academic year 1992-93 the management had decided to reduce the standard of 40% to 35% and to all the students securing less than 35% marks in not more than two subjects to take retest in those subjects. The pass percentage for the retest was further reduced to 33% and the students who did not meet this criteria were obviously detained in the same class. The petitioner had secured 11% marks in mathematics and 23% marks in economics at the retest. The petitioner was found weak throughout the academic year. No student below the level of performance as fixed by the policy was promoted to class XII. In the matter of wards of serving personnel who led a disturbed domestic life and did not get a chance of studying in one school continuously, if their performance was not up to mark entitling them for promotion to higher standard, the parents were given an option of either retaining their wards in the school by being detained in the same class or of being issued the transfer certificate of higher class so that they could seek admission in other schools. This policy was also discontinued w.e.f. .12-7-1993 as it was earning a bad name for the institution.
6. As to the charge of discrimination labelled by the petitioner the respondents have stated on affidavit that in spite of the policy of issuing transfer certificate for higher class having been discontinued, there were two exceptions to be found. One is the case of Ambika Prasad Kapoor, student of Class XI-G who was a physically handicapped, also suffering medically and hence accommodated on humanitarian considerations. The other was the case of Master Jasbir Singh and Master Rajbir Singh, both sons of Mehant Seva Dass Singh who had come from a rural background, also having migrated from Punjab on account of well known disturbed civic life there. Seva Dass Singh being a political person also, transfer certificates for his two wards entitling them to admission in higher class were issued, in departure from the policy, because he wanted to go back to Punjab where the situation had improved.
7. We have already noticed that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the petition was of setting aside the detention order and promoting him to prosecute his studies in the next class i.e. XII but in view of the facts set out in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, a case was developed and strongly pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing pressing for issuance of a transfer certificate entitling the petitioner to admission in XII class in some other institution of his choice. We gave an option to the respondents counsel to seek instructions from the management of the respondent and issue transfer certificate to the petitioner as prayed for and get rid of the petitioner from the respondent's institution, leaving it open to him to find out any other institution and accommodate therein. However, the respondents counsel was not agreeable. We have, therefore, to determine the entitlement of the petitioner on the hard facts of the case and the law applicable.
8. Though the petitioner has retired to make out a case of mala fides alleging that the principal of the respondent institution has managed to deliberately detain the petitioner but we do not find the charge of mala fides substantiated. It is difficult to accept that the teachers in the institution would conspire together and fail a student otherwise deserving.
9. We find the petitioner himself having stated in para 4 of the legal notice dated 2-9-1993, annexure G that he had remained generally sick during the academic year 1992-93 and may be that was the cause behind his comparatively poor performance in class XI. Be that whatever it may, it is a highly disputed question of fact to assess the real worth of the performance of the petitioner as a student of class XI. In any case that exercise cannot be performed in exercise of our writ jurisdiction.
10. We have grave doubts if the respondents were justified in adopting the policy of issuing transfer certificates or giving promotions to higher class as an exception merely on humanitarian consideration in spite of the performance of the student not justifying promotion to higher class. Such policy has been discontinued. The petitioner has not been able to cite any instance where in spite of having failed, a student might have been promoted to higher class. We cannot also approve the action of the respondent institution issuing transfer certificate entitling the students in two exceptional cases to admission in higher class in other institutions. We are not satisfied that grounds on which respondent institution proceeded to work out exceptions, could have been valid grounds for justifying such exceptional approach. We have, therefore, to see if the petitioner can be assisted by issuing a writ commanding the respondent institution to issue similar transfer certificate to the petitioner. Suffice it to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the Chief Commissioner v. Mrs. Kitty Puri, , wherein it has been held that a denial of illegal favor cannot amount to discriminatory treatment violative of principle of equality Article 14 of the Constitution.
11. We may also refer to a recent decision of Supreme Court in Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, , wherein their Lordships have reiterated their own view in Coriander Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India, 1958 (1) SCR 523 as under :--
"A wrong decision in favor of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefit on the basis of the wrong decision."
12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner cannot, by citing examples of 2 or 3 students having been shown unjustified favor, claim similar favor being shown to him by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution, more so when we are called upon to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction.
13. For the foregoing reasons we find the petitioner not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed though without any order as to costs.
14. Petition dismissed.