Dismissed

Priyam Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education and Literacy,Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2024/6948/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A student sought a writ of mandamus to allot an additional Hindi subject in Class XI, exceeding the permitted limit. The court dismissed the petition as mandamus cannot be issued to violate regulations and ordered costs easy while leaving maintainability for a future case.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; costs are made easy.

Priyam Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79121

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6948 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Priyam Gupta

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education And Literacy,Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Yadav,Sunil Kumar Maurya

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard Ms. Archana Gupta, who appears in person and is the natural guardian of the minor petitioner as well as Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, who has filed her Vakalatnama, which is taken on record as well as the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:-

¶10

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents for expeditiously disposal of the representations of the petitioner for allotment of Hindi as an optional (Sixth subject) subject in class eleventh (Annexed as Annexure 5 & 6).

¶11

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents especially Respondent No. 5 to allot Hindi as an Optional (Sixth Subject) in class eleventh".

¶12

The case of the petitioner is that she is a student of respondent No.5 School. She was admitted in Class-XI for the current Academic Year 2024-25. It is the case of the petitioner that after she had successfully passed her High School Examination in the Academic Year 2023-24, she had chosen the subjects of Hindi and Mathematics as her subjects in Science Group.

¶13

It is the case that the same was not awarded to the petitioner rather she was offered the subjects under the Humanitarian Stream which inter-alia included History, Political Science in Group-1, Fashion Design in Group-2, Legal Studies along with English and Social Useful Productive Works (SUPW).

¶14

It has further been stated that the petitioner wanted to take Hindi as her elective subject and the petitioner and her mother had repeatedly requested the respondent No.5 School to permit the petitioner to take the subject of Hindi in addition to the subjects already offered by the respondent No.5 School to the petitioner.

¶15

It is also stated that despite several requests, the petitioner was compelled to escalate the matter and she filed complaints and copies thereof have been brought on record as Annexure No.4 dated 18.07.2024. She has also stated that another student was granted a similar indulgence by permitting her to take an extra subject of Hindi, but the same was denied to the petitioner.

¶16

It is also stated that the said complaints were made to different authorities including the respondents No.2, 3 and 4, but the same did not evoke any response. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances where a large part of academic year was passing by yet the petitioner was being discriminated and harassed , hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

¶17

Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. Aishwarya Mathur has raised two fold submissions.

¶18

(i) It has been urged that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the categoric decision of the Apex Court in St. Mary's Education Society and another v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others, (2023) 4 SCC 498 . Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it has been urged that even an educational institution which even if engaged in public duty unless the act complaint has a direct nexus is discharging of public duty, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

¶19

It is further submitted that in the instant case, it is primarily an option of subjects which were offered to the petitioner by the School and the same was accepted along with a clear disclaimer that choice of the subject once made will not be altered. Hence, this is in the realm of choice of subjects which were offered by the School to the petitioner which was accepted and now it does not partake the nature of any public duty. Hence, the writ petition cannot be maintained for the relief as prayed.

¶20

(ii) It is also submitted by Shri Mathur that there are certain guidelines of the respondent No.2 Council and more specifically relating to choice of subjects which is part of Chapter (II)B, it says that all candidates must enter English which is compulsory subject with 3, 4 and 5 selective subjects

¶21

so that as a whole maximum there can be six subjects. It also states that a candidate may not enter for more than six subjects including the compulsory subjects and even otherwise no candidate is permitted to change his or her choice of subjects after 15th September of that year in which the candidate has registered in Class-XI.

¶22

It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that as it is six subjects were offered to the petitioner which were accepted with a clear averment that the subjects once selected, no change will be permitted. Even otherwise, in case, if the petitioner is permitted to opt for an additional subject that would be beyond six which as per the Regulations of the Council is not permissible and in any case it is not the case of the petitioner that she is willing to give up any subject for taking Hindi.

¶23

It is also submitted that beyond 15th September of the current year, no such change in subject is permissible at the end of the respondent No.5 School. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, it is stated that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

The guardian of the petitioner in response has submitted that the decision of St. Mary's Education Society (supra) does not apply in the instant case as in the said case, the dispute was between the Institution and its employee whereas the the case of the petitioner is quite different. Hence, the said decision cannot be pressed into service to non-suited the petitioner.

¶25

It is further pointed out that once the petitioner had already sought for change of subject and she had filed her complaint in the month of July, 2024 and several representations were made not only to the School but the other authorities as well, but they did not respond and delay on their part cannot be attributed to the petitioner to deprive her rights for optional subject of Hindi. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶26

The Court has heard Ms. Archana Gupta in person and the learned Senior Counsel, Shri J.N. Mathur for the respondent No.5 School.

¶27

At the outset, it may be noticed that even if the issue of maintainability is to keep aside for a moment, yet the undisputed fact is that the petitioner while applying for her admission in Class-XI for the Academic Year 2024-25, she had opted for Humanities Stream.

¶28

From a perusal of the Annexure-A3 annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it indicates that in the Humanities Stream, the subjects available and offered for

¶29

education were English, SUPW, History and Political Science and even there are two groups from which the candidate is permitted to choose once subject from each of the two groups.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that while making the selection, apart from four subjects in the Humanities Stream, the petitioner had opted for Hindi subject of Group-1 and Mathematics in Group-2. However, at the running page-27 of the said form dated 18.09.2023, it indicates that the petitioner had taken the Science Stream with Hindi as subject of Group-1.

¶31

In contrast to the aforesaid, a letter issued by the School dated 18.04.2024 which was issued prior to the declaration of the result of Class-X, the petitioner had opted for the Humanities Stream with six subjects which has been mentioned in the said letter which also had specific stipulation that the subjects may not be altered.

¶32

So far as the relief claimed by the petitioner for getting her representations decided is concerned, the record would reveal that the School by means of its order dated 03.09.2024 had already informed to the petitioner that the change as sought by the petitioner was not permissible and her request was turned down.

¶33

It was further reiterated by another letter issued by the School dated 11.09.2024 which has been brought on record as Annexure No.A-17 with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Once, the aforesaid information was conveyed to the petitioner which is not disputed, the relief claimed by the petitioner to get her representations brought on record as Anenxure No.5 and 6 which are dated 22.07.2024 and 02.08.2024 pales into insignificance as the outcome has already been informed to the petitioner and there is no challenge to the same.

¶34

In absence of any challenge to it, its validity cannot be tested in absence of any pleadings or relief claimed in this regard. The petitioner could not dispute the fact that the window for change of subjects even if at all permissible cannot be acceded after 15th September, 2024 in view of the Regulations of the Council, hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, the mandamus cannot be issued, as prayed.

¶35

Another fact which could not be disputed that the petitioner under the Regulations of the Council cannot have more than six subjects and there is no pleading that the petitioner was ready for foregoing any one subject and the same was intimated to the School and it failed to take any decision rather the entire

¶36

contention of the petitioner is that apart from the subjects that she has elected to pursue she still would like to continue as Hindi an additional subject.

¶37

It is made clear that since the relief of mandamus in the given set of circumstances cannot be issued, the issue of maintainability as raised by Shri Mathur, learned Senior Counsel in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in St. Mary's Education Society (supra) is left to be considered in a more appropriate case.

¶38

Considering the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the relief claimed cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶39

Costs are made easy.

¶40

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 Rakesh/-

¶41

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Priyam Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education and Literacy,Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyam Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education and Literacy,Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jang Bahadur and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Pyare Lal Pandey Memorial Inter College, Sitapur Thru. Its Manager Alok Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Aneeta Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Rae Bareli and 3 Others

Shree Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Satyavrat Pathak vs Dr. Nitin Bansal Commissioner and Another

Prabhawati vs Consolidation Officer, Iiird, Bahraich and 3 Others