rajneesh madhok
SPNer
- Jan 1, 2010
- 517
- 490
- 60
12 yrs old girl student moves DHC against her expulsion by St. Xavier School, Delhi
N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
IN THE MATTER OF:
Impugned action on the part of St. Xavier’s Senior Secondary School, respondent No.1 herein, in expelling the petitioner from the school
IN THE MATTER OF:
Impugned inaction on the part of the Director of Education, GNCT, respondent No.2 herein, to take action against the respondent-school in accordance with law for failure on the part of respondent-school to allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the school
IN THE MATTER OF:
Violation of the fundamental right to education of the petitioner as guaranteed to her under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of The Delhi School Education Act, 1973, The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
IN THE MATTER OF:
(i) Constitution of India
(ii) The Delhi School Education Act, 1973
(iii) The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
(iv) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kumari Suman Bhati (Minor)
Through her next friend and natural father
Shri Naresh Bhati,
R/o J-42, Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tila,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 ……..Petitioner
1. St. Xavier’s Senior Secondary School,
Rajniwas Marg, Civil Lines,
Delhi110054
2. The Director of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 … Respondents
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SAID HIGH COURT
The humble petition of the petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned action on the part of the Xavier’s Senior Secondary School, herein after referred as respondent-school, in expelling the petitioner from the school on 17.03.2010 on the ground that she failed in Class VI in the academic year 2009-10. The present writ petition is also directed against the impugned inaction on the part of the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, herein after referred as respondent No.2, to take action against the respondent-school for failure on the part of the respondent-school to allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the respondent-school. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned action / inaction on the part of the respondents are totally illegal, anti-child, arbitrary, unjust, punitive in nature, unethical, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violative of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hit by the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
2. The petitioner by the present petition has raised the following vital questions of law of general public as well as of private importance for determination by this Hon’ble Court:-
(i) Whether the impugned action on the part of the respondent-school in expelling 12 yrs old student from the school on the ground that she failed in Class VI is totally illegal, anti-child, arbitrary, unjust, punitive in nature, unethical, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violative of the provisions of The Delhi School Education Act, 1973, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hit by the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)?
3. The facts of the case so far as relevant for the purposes of present writ petition are given in brief as under.
4. The petitioner submits that she has been a regular student of the respondent-school Class K.G. It is submitted that while the petitioner was studying in class IV, she failed in the examination and detailed in Class IV. Thereafter, she qualified the Class IV examination and promoted to Class V. It is submitted that on 27.03.2010, the Principal handed over the marks-sheet of Class VI to the petitioner’s father with the following remark: “Detained and withdrawn”. It was also told to the parent verbally that the student had been removed from the school from now on. It is submitted that Mr. Naresh Bhati on 27.03.2010 and also on 29.03.2010 requested the Principal of the school to not to remove his daughter as it would ruin the future of the child. He also submitted a written representation to the Principal on 29.03.2010 with a request to permit her child to continue her studies in the school. However, the Principal remained adamant throughout and declined to accept the request of the parent.
True copies of the marks-sheet and the representation dated 29.03.2010 are enclosed hereto as Annexures A & B respectively.
5. The petitioner submits that after having failed to persuade the Principal of the school to let the petitioner continue her studies in the said school, the parents and the student approached Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group with a request to help the child. It is submitted that the Social Jurist sent a phonogram dated 31.03.2010 followed by a representation dated 31.03.2010 requesting the respondent-school to forthwith allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the school. However, no response has been received so far.
True copies of the phonogram and the representation dated 31.03.2010 are enclosed hereto as Annexures C & D respectively.
6. The petitioner submits that it is unfortunate that in a time when the Government is coming up with laws, schemes and policies to encourage the girl child to study more, here is a school that is trying to jeopardize a class VI girl’s future by expelling her from the school system. It is highly unjust as well as illegal to expel a student who wishes to study further and make her career.
7. The petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions of Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and Section 16 of The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, no student admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education.
8. The relevant provisions of Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 are reproduced as under:-
“37. Forms of disciplinary measures.- (1) The following shall be the disciplinary measures which may be adopted by a school in dealing with:
(a) all students-
(i) detention during the break, for neglect of class work, but no detention shall be made after the school hours,
(ii) corporal punishment
(b) students who have attained the age of fourteen years-
(i) fine,
(ii) expulsion,
(iii) rustication.
(2) For the avoidance of doubts it is hereby declared that the disciplinary measures specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall not be imposed on any student who has not attained the age of fourteen years.”
9. The relevant provisions of Section 16 of The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are reproduced as under:
“Section 16. Prohibition of holding back an expulsion- No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from the school till the completion of elementary education.”
10. The petitioner submits that the respondent- school has no authority in law to remove her from the school as she has yet not completed 14 years of age or elementary education. In any case, a student can not be removed from the school on the ground that she has failed in a class. It appears that the school has no respect for the law or for the child’s future. In the present case, the petitioner has every right to continue in the school and complete her studies. The action of the respondent-school is totally illegal and arbitrary.
11. The petitioner begs to challenge the validity of the impugned actions/inactions on the part of the respondents on the following amongst other
GROUNDS
A. Because the impugned actions/inactions are totally illegal, anti-child, arbitrary, unjust, punitive in nature, unethical, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violative of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hit by the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
B. Because the respondent-school has no authority in law to remove the petitioner from the school as she has yet not completed 14 years of age or elementary education. In any case, a student can not be removed from the school on the ground that she has failed in a class.
C. Because the impugned action on the part of the respondent-school is hit by the provisions of Rule 37 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Section 16 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
D. Because the impugned inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 to take action against the respondent-school in accordance with law for the failure on the part of the respondent-school to allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the respondent-school is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and bad in law and tantamount to failure on the part of the respondent No.3 to perform its constitutional and statutory duties.
12. The petitioner has no other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition.
13. The petitioner has not filed any similar petition either in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or in any Hon’ble High Court in India.
PRAYER
14. In the premise aforesaid, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue:
a. any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent-school to forthwith allow the petitioner to attend classes in Class VI to continue her studies in the respondent-school;
b. any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 2 to take action against the respondent-school in accordance with law for the failure on the part of the respondent-school to allow the petitioner to attend classes in the respondent-school; and
c. allow the present writ petition with costs.
New Delhi
Dated: 02.04.2010
RAJNEESH MADHOK
N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W. P. (C) No. ___________OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Impugned action on the part of St. Xavier’s Senior Secondary School, respondent No.1 herein, in expelling the petitioner from the school
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Impugned inaction on the part of the Director of Education, GNCT, respondent No.2 herein, to take action against the respondent-school in accordance with law for failure on the part of respondent-school to allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the school
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Violation of the fundamental right to education of the petitioner as guaranteed to her under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of The Delhi School Education Act, 1973, The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
(i) Constitution of India
(ii) The Delhi School Education Act, 1973
(iii) The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
(iv) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kumari Suman Bhati (Minor)
Through her next friend and natural father
Shri Naresh Bhati,
R/o J-42, Aruna Nagar, Majnu Ka Tila,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 ……..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. St. Xavier’s Senior Secondary School,
Rajniwas Marg, Civil Lines,
Delhi110054
2. The Director of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat Building
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 … Respondents
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SAID HIGH COURT
The humble petition of the petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned action on the part of the Xavier’s Senior Secondary School, herein after referred as respondent-school, in expelling the petitioner from the school on 17.03.2010 on the ground that she failed in Class VI in the academic year 2009-10. The present writ petition is also directed against the impugned inaction on the part of the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, herein after referred as respondent No.2, to take action against the respondent-school for failure on the part of the respondent-school to allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the respondent-school. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned action / inaction on the part of the respondents are totally illegal, anti-child, arbitrary, unjust, punitive in nature, unethical, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violative of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hit by the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
2. The petitioner by the present petition has raised the following vital questions of law of general public as well as of private importance for determination by this Hon’ble Court:-
(i) Whether the impugned action on the part of the respondent-school in expelling 12 yrs old student from the school on the ground that she failed in Class VI is totally illegal, anti-child, arbitrary, unjust, punitive in nature, unethical, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violative of the provisions of The Delhi School Education Act, 1973, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hit by the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)?
3. The facts of the case so far as relevant for the purposes of present writ petition are given in brief as under.
4. The petitioner submits that she has been a regular student of the respondent-school Class K.G. It is submitted that while the petitioner was studying in class IV, she failed in the examination and detailed in Class IV. Thereafter, she qualified the Class IV examination and promoted to Class V. It is submitted that on 27.03.2010, the Principal handed over the marks-sheet of Class VI to the petitioner’s father with the following remark: “Detained and withdrawn”. It was also told to the parent verbally that the student had been removed from the school from now on. It is submitted that Mr. Naresh Bhati on 27.03.2010 and also on 29.03.2010 requested the Principal of the school to not to remove his daughter as it would ruin the future of the child. He also submitted a written representation to the Principal on 29.03.2010 with a request to permit her child to continue her studies in the school. However, the Principal remained adamant throughout and declined to accept the request of the parent.
True copies of the marks-sheet and the representation dated 29.03.2010 are enclosed hereto as Annexures A & B respectively.
5. The petitioner submits that after having failed to persuade the Principal of the school to let the petitioner continue her studies in the said school, the parents and the student approached Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group with a request to help the child. It is submitted that the Social Jurist sent a phonogram dated 31.03.2010 followed by a representation dated 31.03.2010 requesting the respondent-school to forthwith allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the school. However, no response has been received so far.
True copies of the phonogram and the representation dated 31.03.2010 are enclosed hereto as Annexures C & D respectively.
6. The petitioner submits that it is unfortunate that in a time when the Government is coming up with laws, schemes and policies to encourage the girl child to study more, here is a school that is trying to jeopardize a class VI girl’s future by expelling her from the school system. It is highly unjust as well as illegal to expel a student who wishes to study further and make her career.
7. The petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions of Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and Section 16 of The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, no student admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education.
8. The relevant provisions of Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 are reproduced as under:-
“37. Forms of disciplinary measures.- (1) The following shall be the disciplinary measures which may be adopted by a school in dealing with:
(a) all students-
(i) detention during the break, for neglect of class work, but no detention shall be made after the school hours,
(ii) corporal punishment
(b) students who have attained the age of fourteen years-
(i) fine,
(ii) expulsion,
(iii) rustication.
(2) For the avoidance of doubts it is hereby declared that the disciplinary measures specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall not be imposed on any student who has not attained the age of fourteen years.”
9. The relevant provisions of Section 16 of The Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are reproduced as under:
“Section 16. Prohibition of holding back an expulsion- No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from the school till the completion of elementary education.”
10. The petitioner submits that the respondent- school has no authority in law to remove her from the school as she has yet not completed 14 years of age or elementary education. In any case, a student can not be removed from the school on the ground that she has failed in a class. It appears that the school has no respect for the law or for the child’s future. In the present case, the petitioner has every right to continue in the school and complete her studies. The action of the respondent-school is totally illegal and arbitrary.
11. The petitioner begs to challenge the validity of the impugned actions/inactions on the part of the respondents on the following amongst other
GROUNDS
A. Because the impugned actions/inactions are totally illegal, anti-child, arbitrary, unjust, punitive in nature, unethical, discriminatory, unconstitutional, violative of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, hit by the provisions of Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 21-A (right to education) and Article 38 (right to social justice) of the Constitution of India read with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
B. Because the respondent-school has no authority in law to remove the petitioner from the school as she has yet not completed 14 years of age or elementary education. In any case, a student can not be removed from the school on the ground that she has failed in a class.
C. Because the impugned action on the part of the respondent-school is hit by the provisions of Rule 37 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Section 16 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
D. Because the impugned inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 to take action against the respondent-school in accordance with law for the failure on the part of the respondent-school to allow the petitioner to continue her studies in the respondent-school is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and bad in law and tantamount to failure on the part of the respondent No.3 to perform its constitutional and statutory duties.
12. The petitioner has no other efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition.
13. The petitioner has not filed any similar petition either in the Hon’ble Supreme Court or in any Hon’ble High Court in India.
PRAYER
14. In the premise aforesaid, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue:
a. any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent-school to forthwith allow the petitioner to attend classes in Class VI to continue her studies in the respondent-school;
b. any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 2 to take action against the respondent-school in accordance with law for the failure on the part of the respondent-school to allow the petitioner to attend classes in the respondent-school; and
c. allow the present writ petition with costs.
New Delhi
Dated: 02.04.2010
Ashok Agarwal, Kusum Sharma & Anuj Agarwal
Advocates for the Petitioner
483, Block-II, Lawyers Chambers,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003
