The Court considered a challenge to Sainik Schools rules mandating full course duration and NDA exam participation. It rejected the argument that these restrictions violated fundamental rights, upholding them as necessary for national defense preparedness.
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.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.34077 OF 2011
DATED:9.8.2012
Between: C.H. Anantha Ramulu … Appellant
And
Honorary Secretary Sainik School’s Society Ministry of Defence Room NO.101, D-1 Wing Sena Bhavan, DH.Q. P.O. New Delhi and another … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.34077 OF 2011
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the clauses 3.35 and 3.38 of the Rules and Regulations of the respondent – society school, as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and (e), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
According to the petitioner, Clauses 3.35 and 3.38 of the Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations, 1997, restrict the parents of the students who are prosecuting their education from 6th to 12th standards from withdrawing their children from the respondent school. They have a right to withdraw the students but in that case, the parents are required to pay the fees/scholarship for the classes completed and such restrictions imposed by the said clauses are not amenable to any law. Hence, the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Clauses 3.35 and 3.38 of the Rules and Regulations of the respondent school, which are challenged in the writ petition as unconstitutional, read as under:
“WITHDRAWAL BY PARENTS/GUARDIANS
3.35. All boys are admitted to the school on the understanding that they will remain in the school for the entire course. In case any of the parent wants to withdraw his son on any account, including revision of fees/scholarship, he must give the notice of withdrawal in writing to the Principal at
least two months before the commencement of the following term. Failure to give this notice will entail forfeiture of caution money. Parents of boys who are in receipt of scholarships can withdraw them only after repayment of the total amount of scholarship enjoyed by the boys.
ADMISSION TO N.D.A.
3.38. All boys admitted to Sainik Schools who are in receipt of any Government scholarships including Defence scholarship but excluding Merit Scholarships awarded by the Govt. of India, will be required to avail all chances for the NDA Examination conducted by the UPSC unless a particular State Govt./Union Territories Admin makes stipulation to the contrary. They will also be liable to appear for tests, interviews and medical examinations at the Services Selection Board or other military institutions, training institutions, to which they are asked to report. Failure to fulfil this liability, or attempts to leave these institutions prematurely or wilful attempts on the part of such boys to undertake this as a procedural formality only, if detected, will make the parents/guardians liable to refund the entire amount of scholarship enjoyed by such students. The decision of the scholarship granting authority in respect of such recoveries will be final and binding.”
In terms of Clause 3.35 of the Rules and Regulations of the
respondent school, all boys are admitted to the school on the understanding that they will remain in the school for the entire course and on any account if a parent/guardian wants to withdraw his son, including revision of fees/scholarship he must give the notice of withdrawal in writing to the Principal at least two months before the commencement of the following term and that failure to give such notice will entail forfeiture of caution money. Parents of boys who are in receipt of scholarships can withdraw them only after repayment of the total amount of scholarship enjoyed by the boys. In terms of Clause 3.38, all boys admitted to Sainik Schools who are in receipt of any Government scholarships, including Defence Scholarship, will be required to avail all chances for the NDA Examinations conducted by the UPSC, unless a contrary stipulation by a particular State/Union
Territories Administration, and that they will also be liable to appear for tests, interviews and medical examinations at the Service Selection Board or other military institutions, training institutions, to which they are asked to report and failure to fulfil this liability or attempts to leave these institutions prematurely or wilful attempts of boys to undertake this as a procedural formality only, if detected, will make the parents/guardians liable to refund the entire amount of scholarship enjoyed by such students.
We find that there is no reason to declare that above said Clauses are made in violation of any Article of the Constitution of India. Even according to petitioner, respondents have established 24 sainik schools in 1962 and they are imparting education to the students with the primary aim of preparing boys academically, physically and mentally for entry into the National Defence Academy (NDA). The main purpose of spending money on those students by the respondents is only to enable the boys to join the NDA. In our opinion, meritorious students are getting a chance to prepare themselves for being admitted into NDA through the Sainik Schools and the money spent by the Government on such account will benefit the Nation to have students who can lookafter our defence in future. Therefore, it cannot be said that the restrictions imposed under Clauses 3.35 and 3.38 of the Rules and Regulations of the respondent school are unconstitutional.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 9.8.2012
bnr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether clauses 3.35 and 3.38 of the Sainik Schools Society Rules restricting student withdrawal and NDA appearance are unconstitutional.
C.H. Anantha Ramulu
Honorary Secretary Sainik School's Society
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
