W.P.(C)/4561/2015 of RAVINDER SINGH Vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4561/2015 & CM No.8267/2015RAVINDER SINGH..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThrough :Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. ChandrikaGupta, Advs.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS..... RespondentsThrough :Mr. Shiva Sharma, Adv. for Mr.Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC for R-1 & 2.Mr. Kapil Gupta, Adv. for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R01.05.2017

By the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed as under:-

“(a) issue writ, order and/or direction in the nature ofCertiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/ordirection in the like nature in favour of the petitioner andagainst the respondents, thereby quashing the letter dated24.4.2015 issued by respondent No.3 whereby the names ofthe two sons of the petitioner i.e. Arjun, student of class VthD and Yuvraj, student of class 2[nd]B was struck off from theschool roll due to non payment of the fees;

(b) issue writ, order and/or direction in the nature ofMandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/ordirection in the like nature in favour of the petitioner andagainst the respondents, thereby directing the respondentno.3 to re-admit the said two sons of the petitioner and toallow them to continue with their studies in the said schoolunder the category of Economic Weaker Section and furthernot to enforce the said letter dated 24.04.2015 in any mannerwhatsoever and further to provide all benefits and privilegesso permissible under the Act and the rules and regulationsmade there under and not to victimize the said sons of thepetitioner in any manner whatsoever.

(c) issue any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction inthe like nature which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit andproper in the facts and circumstances of the present case infavour of the petitioner and against the respondents; Suchother or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fitand proper in the facts and circumstances of the present casebe also passed in favour of the petitioner and against therespondents to meet the ends of justice.”

Petitioner’s children are studying in respondent no.3 school right fromthe nursery class. Presently they are in 4[th]and 7[th]standard respectively.Petitioner did not pay the school fee from January, 2014 till April 2014,therefore, names of his children were struck off from the rolls.

Petitioner has approached this court, primarily with the prayer that thechildren be shifted from General category to the Economically WeakerSection (EWS) category. Vide order dated 8[th]May, 2015, respondent no.3was directed not to give effect to the communication dated 24[th]April, 2015whereby, the names of petitioner’s children were struck off due to the non-payment of fee from January, 2014 to April, 2014. We are in 2017 now.Three years have gone by since then.Petitioner has not paid the fee all thiswhile and as of now arrears of `2,91,160/- are due and payable. On 13[th]February, 2017, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 had made astatement that respondent no.3 was willing to reduce the amount of arrearsof fee by 50%. Learned counsel for the petitioner took time to take

instructions. However, on the last date of hearing, that is, 20[th]April, 2017, itwas submitted that petitioner is not willing to pay any fee. It is submittedthat category of these two students be changed from General to EWScategory.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that there is no suchpolicy envisaging the change of category from ‘general’ to ‘EWS’.Students have to be admitted in EWS category by applying online afresh asper the policy formulated by the respondent no.2 and admission is done bythe draw of lots.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that no vacancyexists in the class 4[th]and 7[th]under the EWS category and for this reason alsochildren can otherwise, be not accommodated in 4[th]and 7[th]standard, even ifthis court directs, as special case. In my view respondent no.3 cannot bedirected to continue the petitioner’s children on roll without payment of fee.As regards EWS category is concerned no such direction can be given.

For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneousapplication is disposed of as infructuous.

Dasti.

MAY 01, 2017/dk

A.K. PATHAK, J.