Held that relying on samples of application form cannot be basis for conclusion that petitioner belongs to foreclosed category and hence, petitioners were granted admission in Class 7 during pendency of case.
Granted admission in Class 7 during pendency of the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
,<
IN THE HON'BLEHIGHCOURTOF CMHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2 O 5~°) OF 2012
PETITIONERS 1. Ku. Anushka Katlam, D/o Shri Prashant Katlam, Aged about 14 years, Minor through Natural Guardian Fafher Shri Prashant Katlam, R/o Plot No. 007, House No.01, Sector 8, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
RNo.......i^..&.241^-^ presentedbyShri^l.^-^^Tbated.........-^""-^-^"4
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE226 OF TMECONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A-WRiT OR WRITSIN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, D1RECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE
^^^
^5 s'^i
75T •<11<<ICl'LI.??Tll'Llil6, fs|dl'!-l^<
^...&i..^:.l.^^l 13^
||SII^TT^RT (>jc|!.i«|f^q)|
|---|---|---|
|3?t^HW ft-li+
^Tsff •STI^T Sh^ich|^tiiwaftaSK^I|^ir'irf^'4lTf •^Rcii'^fi^
^aiRra3ii^i|
|S-.SWc"s^|SB : Hon'ble Shri IVIanindra IV
9.7.2014
Shri R.S. Marhas, counse
Ms. Smiti Dubey, Panel L
"' :' Shri C.K. Sahu, counsel f(
Shri P.R. Patankar, coun^
Heard.
This writ petition under /'
preferred by the petitioners seel
-*h
"provide~admission in Class 7 &
Learned
counsel
for
th
pendency
of the
petition,
bo
actuated only on irrelevant coni
admission.
He,
however, subr|Iibhan Shrivastava, J.
^wyerforthe State/respondent No.2.
|ir respondent No.3.
el for respondents No. 4 to 6.
jrticle 226 of the Constitution of India is
j:ing a direction to respondent -School to
$l".
forthe petitioners.
^
petitioners
submits
that
during
the
|h
the
petitioners
have
been
granted
fiits that due to action of respondents
jiderations, they were denied admission.|
||He submits that the only opere
thatthe petitioners belong to re^
the case of the petitioners tha1
/
admission is that they belong
make complaint to the State S
Taking
into consideratio
granted to the petitioners in c
petition,
1 am not inclined to k^
Commission .
With the aforesaid observ|j
|
(
Itive reason for denial of admission was
jerve category.
ji the submission
regarding admission
jther institution during the pendency of
ep this matter pending. However, if it is
the only operative reason for denial of
b resen/e category, the petitioners may
:heduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
^tions, the petition is finally disposed off.|
|||Sd/-
ManindraMohanShrivastava
Judge|
-\ N^
•^'
ti 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for admission in Class 7 based on their reservation status.
Whether the sample application form indicates the institution denies admission only to persons belonging to reserved categories.
Whether the petition is maintainable to seek admission in the case of minority institutions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ku. Anushka Katlam
Ku. Shivi Katlam
Union of India
State of Chhattisgarh
Delhi Public School
Central Board of Secondary Education
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
