Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ., dismissed a Special Appeal which assailed the dismissal of a writ petition by a Single Judge holding the same as not maintainable.
The son of the deponent of the writ petition appeared in the entrance test on March 20, 2022 held for the admission as Resident Scholar in the educational institution in question i.e. La Martiniere College, Lucknow for taking admission in Class-VIII. Result of the entrance test was declared on March 25, 2022 and he was declared successful to get admission in Class-VIII as Resident Scholar. Due to some compelling circumstances i.e. serious illness of the mother of the candidate and his father being out of town for the purposes of service, the student could not get admission in Class-VIII as Resident Scholar, therefore, an application was preferred by the father of the candidate to the Principal of the Institution on April 04, 2022 through e-mail that instead of treating his son as a Resident Scholar, he may be given admission as Day Scholar as he was ready to complete all required formalities including the fees.
Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, submitted that the father of the candidate had not been informed about the fate of the admission of his son till April 18, 2022, therefore, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment of Committee of Management, La Martiniere College Lucknow v. Vatsal Gupta, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 743 where it was held that the institution being an unaided minority private institution, therefore, the writ petition against such institution may not be entertained.
The Court dismissed the special appeal holding that they were in full agreement with the observations and findings of such judgment. However, the Court observed that if the admission of the student-appellant for Class- VIII for that he was admittedly qualified was not possible as Day Scholar student as he had qualified such entrance examination for Resident Scholar, at least specific information to this effect must be provided to the parents of such student at the earliest so that appropriate steps could be taken by the parents of such student. The Court further stated that in such compelling circumstances, at least on the basis of principles of equity, it was bare minimum required on the part of the Principal of the institution to apprise the parents of the student that the institution would be unable to provide admission to their ward in Class-VIII as a Day Scholar student.
Expressing displeasure towards the approach of the Principal of the institution the Court opined that they should have been immediately informed about such fact so that such student could get his admission in any other institution for receiving proper education inasmuch as to receive proper education is a Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.
[Tanishk Srivastava v. State of U.P., Special Appeal No. – 294 of 2022, decided on June 8, 2022]
Counsel for Appellant :- Satendra Kumar Singh
Chief Standing Counsel for State Respondents: Ms Deepshikha
