Delhi High Court
Master Singham vs Directorate Of Education & Ors on 2 July, 2018
Author: Siddharth Mridul
Bench: Siddharth Mridul
#17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 02.07.2018
W.P.(C) 6572/2018 & CM APPL.25079/2018 (Stay)
MASTER SINGHAM ..... Petitioner
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sethi and Mr. Ranvir
Sethi, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr. Abhinav Goyal and Ms. Shivani
Vij, Advocates for R-1
Mr. P.S. Sudheer and Mr. Bharat Sood, Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been instituted on behalf of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Master Singham') essentially assailing an order dated 21.05.2018 rendered by W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 1 of 8 respondent No.1/Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'DOE'), whereby, Master Singham's admission to the respondent No.2 school has been cancelled with immediate effect, albeit deferred till 01.07.2018.
2. The petition prays as follows:-
"(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent No.1 and 2 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect of the impugned order dated 31.03.2018.
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ setting aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.1.
(c) Any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."
3. The facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are briefly encapsulated as follows:-
(a) Master Singham was granted admission in the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category by the respondents on an application filed by his father, namely, Mr. Gaurav Goel, in the year 2013.W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 2 of 8
(b) It is an admitted position that the said application was duly accompanied by a certificate issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, New Delhi District, Delhi dated 08.01.2013, which clearly elaborated that the income of the father was within the permissible limit, so as to entitle him to seek admission for Master Singham in the EWS category.
(c) Master Singham has been a student at the respondent No.2 school since his admission in the academic year 2013-14.
(d) Subsequently, on 03.01.2018, at the time of seeking admission to the respondent No.2 school for Master Singham's sibling, Mr. Gaurav Goel informed the said school that, on account of a change in his income and residence status, he was seeking change of category for admission in relation to Master Singham as well.
(e) Predicated on that, on a reference made by the respondent No.2 school, the Director of Education is stated to have conducted an enquiry, which has culminated with the passing of the impugned order.
4. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the same is founded in its entirety on a report furnished by the concerned District Magistrate, to the effect that, Mr. Gaurav Goel misled the authorities at the time of Master Singham's admission to the respondent No.2 school, under the EWS W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 3 of 8 category; and that all the documents furnished by Mr. Gaurav Goel, in support of that claim were forged and fabricated.
5. It is further an admitted position that neither the District Magistrate nor the Director of Education, at any stage, issued a Show Cause Notice to Master Singham or afforded him an opportunity to represent or be heard in the enquiry conducted in this behalf, before visiting him with the consequences of their finding, that the admission was obtained fraudulently; and consequently directing cancellation thereof, as aforestated.
6. There can be no quarrel with the legal position that the right to education is a fundamental right, pursuant to the enactment of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Furthermore, a bare perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act clearly reflects that the said Act is a piece of beneficial legislation, enacted with the intent of securing a fundamental right and constitutional directive for free and compulsory primary education in achievement of social and economic development. By virtue of enactment of the said Act, it casts an obligation under Article 21A of the Constitution of India on the State to provide and ensure that all children complete elementary education and receive equitable quality education. W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 4 of 8
7. In the present case, it is observed that the impugned action of the official respondents, involves civil consequences and severely prejudices the vested rights of Master Singham to be educated, in accordance with law, and is further in violation of the basic rules of justice and fairplay. Master Singham's educational prospects have been adversely affected, without affording an opportunity to him to set up his version or defence and without affording him an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the official respondents, which has been relied upon to his prejudice in the enquiry.
8. It is trite to state that where a body or authority is quasi judicial and where it determines a matter involving rights judicially because of express or implied provision, the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem applies with full force and vigour.
9. In view of the dictum of the House of Lords in Ridge vs. Baldwin, reported as 1964 AC 40, which has permeated every judicial order rendered since by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court, and in keeping with the dictum of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta, reported as W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 5 of 8 (1973) 1 SCC 120, there can be no manner of doubt that it is unfair for a quasi judicial authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to Master Singham to be heard before arriving at a decision, which has prejudicially and adversely affected his educational rights and interest.
10. In State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, reported as (1967) 2 SCR 625 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows:-
"An order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fairplay. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon. He is however under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet, and the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed; it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power.W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 6 of 8
If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case."
11. In view of the foregoing, the reliance placed by Mr. Gautam Narayan, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 on the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, reported as (2015) 8 SCC 519, and in particular paragraph 39 thereof, is not attracted to the facts of the present case and is, therefore, misplaced.
12. From the foregoing discussion, since Master Singham has been visited with an order cancelling his admission to the respondent No.2 school; an act which prejudicially affects his vested rights, without having been issued a Show Cause Notice or heard in the matter, prior to the passing of the impugned decision, the same in my considered view is a nullity. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
13. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to permit Master Singham to attend the classes with the respondent No.2 school W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 7 of 8 forthwith. However, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, if they are so advised.
14. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The pending application also stands disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) JULY 02, 2018 dn W.P.(C) 6572/2018 Page 8 of 8