VIJAY MALHOTRA vs DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS.
$~99
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2783/2018
VIJAY MALHOTRA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shobhit Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ORS….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Ms. Prashansa Sharma, Advs. for Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, SC for DoE
Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vedanta Varma and Mr. Shubhaknar Choudhary and Mr. Rishabh Mishra, Advs. for R-3 to 5
Ms. Chand Chopra, Ms. Neha Bhupathiraju, Advs. for R-6/DDA
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 15.04.2024
CM APPL. 22042/2024
1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner in WP(C) 2783/2018.
2. The prayer clause in the application reads thus:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Honble Court may, in the interest of justice, be pleased to:
(i) Restrain the Respondent No. 3 to 5 from taking any coercive and discriminatory actions against the wards of the Petitioner, studying in Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Schools, and restore the name of the son of the Petitioner in the student exchange programme for Germany, as described above;
(ii) pass any other order which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice in favour of the Petitioner;
3. The prayer clause in WP(C) 2783/2018, on the other hand, reads as under:
In view of above submissions, the Petitioner most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously be pleased to:
(a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to conduct elections for the Parent Teachers Association of Respondent nos. 3 and 4 Schools immediately as per Circular dated 12.04.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 1;
(b) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent nos. 3 to 5 to charge uniform fees from students studying in the same class;
(c) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Schools to not levy EduCom charges and SMS charges in terms of the order No. Z-17/919 dated 29.06.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and refund the same to the Petitioner.
(d) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to set aside hike in fees by the Respondent No. 3 and 4 as per the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, the Justice for All judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court and circular dated 16.04.2010, and orders dated 19.02.2016 and 16.04.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 1;
(e) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, for striking down the letter dated 23.03.2015 issued / sent by the Respondent No. 3 School to the Respondent No. 1 regarding fee hike;
(f) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Schools to refund / adjust the excess fees charged by them to the Petitioner along with 18% interest per annum there upon;
(g) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 1 to 5 to charge the unhiked fees from the Petitioner;
(h) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 6 Authority to ensure compliance of terms and conditions of allotment of land failing which coercive steps including cancelation of lease deed of land be taken for violation of conditions of allotment of land;
(i) issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent nos. 1 to take action against Respondent No. 2 for colluding with the Respondent No. 3 and 4 Schools against the Petitioner.
j) Allow the present Petition with costs.
Pass such other further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. Thus, it is clear, from a bare reading of the prayers in WP(C) 2783/2018, that the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the fees which were being charged by the Respondents 3 and 4 schools.
5. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed CM 11258/2018, seeking a stay on the respondent schools charging the alleged excess fees. By order dated 21 March 2018, this Court disposed of the said application with a limited direction that the fees paid by the petitioner for his wards studying in the respondent schools would be subject to the outcome of the petition.
6. According to the averments in the present application, the petitioners son Master Yuvraj Malhotra (hereinafter Yuvraj) received a WhatsApp message on 18 March 2024, stating that students interested in participating in an exchange programme to Germany in May 2024 could contact Ms. Roma, a teacher working in the Respondent 3 school.
7. Yuvraj contacted Ms. Roma and was informed, vide letter dated 21 March 2024, that he was part of a students delegation selected for participating in the said exchange programme.
8. All communications, thereafter, appear to have been verbal.
9. The application avers that, on 23 March 2024, a teacher from the Respondent 3 school called the petitioner and stated that Yuvraj could not travel to Germany as slots were full. The petitioner claimed to have protested, whereupon the said teacher stated that she would speak to the principal after 25 March 2024. Thereafter, on 24 March 2024, it is stated that Yuvraj came to know that another student who has been left unnamed in the application had received a message from the same teacher, to know whether she or he (as the student has not been named) was interested in going to Germany.
10. The said student is stated to have been informed by the teacher that the slots for travel to Germany were not full.
11. The application also annexes a WhatsApp chat of Yuvraj with another student who is also left unnamed which purports to respond to a query as to whether the slots for travel to Germany were full, in the negative.
12. Thereafter, the application avers that the petitioner repeatedly contacted the teacher, who stated that she had not had the time to discuss the issue with the principal.
13. It is further averred that, in April 2024, the petitioner interacted with the Director of the school and attempted to initiate a conversation with him, but that the Director either feigned ignorance or behaved in an unusual manner. The application further avers that, thereafter, the teacher informed that Yuvrajs name had been dropped from the Germany exchange programme on the instructions of Mr. Aggarwal.
14. Based on these facts and assertions, the application seeks a direction restraining the respondent schools from taking any coercive or discriminatory action against the petitioners wards and further seeks restoration of Yuvrajs name in the student exchange programme for Germany.
15. To a query from the Court, Mr. Shobhit Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, candidly acknowledges that there is no right vested in a student to participate in the exchange programme for travel to Germany. Indeed, the application does not annex any document, Rule, Regulation, guidelines or even communication, on the basis of which the petitioner could claim a right that Yuvraj should be allowed to travel to Germany on the exchange programme.
16. The issue of the students who should, or should not, be permitted to travel to Germany is, therefore, apparently purely discretionary, and discretion vests in that regard with the school.
17. The allegation that the petitioner was misinformed that the slots were full is, again, based on a WhatsApp chat with another student, whose name has not been disclosed.
18. Somewhat strangely, there is not a single written request, from the petitioner, or from Yuvraj, to the school or any of the authorities in the school, raising the grievance that this application seeks to ventilate.
19. It is difficult for this Court to accept that if, indeed, Yuvraj was being victimised, no compliant to that effect would ever had been written by the petitioner to the school.
20. The allegation that the decision to strike off Yuvrajs name from the list of students travelling to Germany was of Mr. Aggarwal is, again, based on an oral information stated to have been conveyed to the petitioner by the teacher.
21. Therefore, even at a prima facie finding, it appears that there has been no coercive or discriminatory action against the petitioner or against his wards.
22. There is no right vested in any student to travel to Germany. There is no cogent material with this Court on the basis of which it can arrive at a conclusion as to whether the slots for travel to Germany were, or were not, in fact full. There is no allegation that any other student has been shortlisted for travel to Germany, who is less deserving than the petitioner.
23. In fact, this application appears to be an attempt at utilising the Court to obtain an order enabling Yuvraj to travel to Germany without even a scintilla of material placed on record to make out any right in that regard.
24. The application is completely frivolous. It is accordingly dismissed with costs of ? 5,000/- to be paid by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
25. Costs be deposited with the Registry of this Court within two weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
APRIL 15, 2024
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 2783/2018 Page 1 of 7