Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The respondent School has filed counter affidavits contending that interference in academic matters by law Courts should be bare minimum; that the respondent School is an autonomous School with its own administrative and academic structure (along with its own Board of Examinations); it follows the system of marking which is typically different from the CBSE pattern which has the grading system; that the evaluative methodology under the two systems cannot be allied with mathematical accuracy; that the prospectus qua various streams in Class XI was notified on or before 10th March, 2010 and the allotment of various streams was done on 28/29th June, 2010 and the classes commenced on 2nd July, 2010; that the petitioners, except for the petitioner in WP(C) No.5379/2010 who has not even paid the fee for Class XI, joined the stream allotted to each of them as per their marks and the eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus aforesaid and have filed these petitions taking a chance on the basis of the sympathetic view taken by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent School pursuant to the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition aforesaid. The counsel for the respondent School has contended that the petitioners were fully satisfied with the allotment of streams to each of them and cannot now be permitted to avail of what followed in the earlier writ petition. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot equate themselves with the outside students who for the purpose of seeking admission have to clear the admission test as well. It is further contended that admissions in the Science stream are based on a number of factors like sufficient teaching strength, availability of infrastructure and laboratories facilities and all the seats in the Science stream being filled, the respondent School would not be able to adjust the petitioners in the Science Stream owing to paucity of resources aforesaid. It is further argued that the petitioners cannot invoke the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution, being not equal to the outside students who not only have to satisfy the eligibility criteria but to also compete in entrance examination; the petitioners don‟t have to compete in an entrance examination. It is thus contended that there is a fair classification between the two categories.

13. Though certain pleadings have been made of there being a difference in grading system and in marking system and of difference in standards in the Board of Examination of the respondent School and of CBSE but there is no material before this Court to proceed on that assumption. Rather the respondent School while prescribing the eligibility criteria in terms of grades for the outside students has within brackets mentioned the percentage in marks to which the said grades correspond. The School nowhere in the prospectus provided that grade „C1‟ corresponds to over 60% marks. Thus what follows is that while the respondent School has encouraged its own students to seek admissions elsewhere in Class XI to pursue the stream of their choice, it has shown a desire to admit outside students in Class XI. The same cannot be permitted.