Allowed

Kumari Ananya Shorewala (Minor) Thr Her Father Anand Shorewala v. Dav Public School Jasola Vihar & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Oct 2016W.P.(C)/7980/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court restored the petitioner's admission at a private school after verifying a fresh EWS income certificate. The order mandates deposit of a penalty by the father but expressly reserves the right of the school to cancel admission if the new certificate is found fictitious.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the petitioner's admission in the school, subject to deposit of a penalty of Rs. 5,000 by the father.

Kumari Ananya Shorewala (Minor) Thr Her Father Anand… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~94

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 19.10.2016

¶4

- W.P.(C) 7980/2016 & CM No.33094/2016 (for interim directions) KUMARI ANANYA SHOREWALA (MINOR) THR HER FATHER ANAND SHOREWALA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL JASOLA VIHAR & ANR.

¶7

....Respondents Through Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Khagesh B. Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jeewan S. B. from respondent No.1 school. Mr. Shatrajit Banjerji, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶9

JUDGMENT 19.10.2016

¶10

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of letter dated 03.05.2016 whereby the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled and name of the petitioner has been struck off from the rolls of the school on the ground that income certificate furnished at the time of seeking admission was fake and forged.

¶12

W.P.(C) No.7980/2016

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the income of the parents of the petitioner is less than Rs. One lakh per annum which is below the prescribed limit for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. Fresh certificate dated 18.05.2016 has been filed along with the petition. The respondent no. 2 was directed to verify the correctness of the certificate. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has produced a copy of the certificate with an endorsement by the office of Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Sarita Vihar certifying that the certificate has been issued by the said office. The copy of the certificate with the endorsement is taken on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on various judgments passed by this Court in similar circumstances whereby the school authorities were directed not to cancel the admission of the minor child on the ground of misdeeds of the father of the child. Learned counsel for the respondent school states that the seats in EWS category are still available. One such Judgment relied upon is dated 22.03.2016 in W.P.(C) 2219/2016, titled as ‘ Master Jai Raikwar & Ors. Vs. The Heritage School & Ors .’ .

¶16

As the issue involves the education of a minor and the minor falls in the eligible category and an income certificate certifying the said fact has been furnished and no fault can be attributed to the minor, in the facts of the case, a lenient view is required to be taken. It is thus directed that the admission of the petitioner be restored and not cancelled, subject to deposit of a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- by the father of the petitioner with the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Delhi within two weeks. The hospital

¶17

W.P.(C) No.7980/2016

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

shall utilize the amount for providing treatment to the persons falling under the EWS category.

¶20

The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the benefits/entitlements under the said category. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

It is clarified that if the new income certificate furnished by the petitioner is found to be fictitious or not correct on any account, it shall be open to the respondents to cancel the admission of the petitioner in accordance with law and no special equity shall be claimed by the petitioner by virtue of the present order.

¶22

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 19, 2016
st

¶23

W.P.(C) No.7980/2016

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Kumari Ananya Shorewala (Minor) Thr Her Father Anand Shorewala v. Dav Public School Jasola Vihar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Ananya Shorewala (Minor) Thr Her Father Anand Shorewala v. Dav Public School Jasola Vihar & Anr.

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

Similar cases

Narain Das & Sons Vs Commissioner,Trade & Taxes, & Anr.

Vidya Nand Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs Rohit and Anr.

UOI & Others Vs Av Balachandran & Anr.

M/S R.L. Promoters Pvt.Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sanjive Kapoor Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South Zone) & Ors.

Raj Kumari & Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Vs Usha Rani

Shimla Satellite Cable Private Limited & Anr. Vs the Union of India

Taru Dahiya Vs Union of India and Ors.

Den Manaoranjan Satellite Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Raisuddin Vs Brijesh Kumar Mishra

Praveen Kumar Vs D a v Pitampura Delhi and Ors.

Master Yash Shokeen (Minor) through His Father Vikas Shokeen Vs Apeejay School & Anr.