AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, ACJ.
Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of applicant-appellants (State) and submits, impugned is order dated 9th July, 2024 of the learned single Judge, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to direct admission of petitioner (appearing through her father), in class-VI of the school, for academic session 2024-25 as she had been provisionally selected. The direction cannot be complied with, which is why appeal has been preferred. There was reported delay of 54 days in presenting the appeal. The delay be condoned on application made.
Mr. Rath, learned advocate files his power executed by respondent, petitioner before the learned single Judge.
Perused the application for condonation of delay. We accept cause shown. The delay is condoned and the appeal admitted. The application is disposed of.
Having heard Mr. Mohanty we perused paragraphs-12 and 13 in impugned judgment. They are reproduced below.
“12. In fact, in the case at hand, lapses are on the part of opposite party Nos.3 and 7 and such other persons involved in the selection process, which led to the issuance of Annexure-3, whereafter, the Select List was prepared and published vide Annexure-4 followed by Admission Notice (Annexure-5), in response whereof, the petitioner’s father obtained the T.C. It is claimed that a Notice vide Annexure-D/6 was issued for correction of data in the result sheet, hence, it was for the petitioner’s father to respond, which was however not done, hence, on scrutiny, the age of the petitioner was noticed, whereafter, admission to her was denied and it is rightly so. But the Court finds the said notice not to be specifically issued to the petitioner’s guardian father. It is a general notice to all the selected candidates. Had it been so, such correction would not have escaped the attention of the petitioner’s father. With such a notice, all the candidates were informed to correct the data as found in Annexure-4. It could be possible for anyone to escape such notice issued by opposite party No.7, who should have made an attempt to inform the guardians of all the selected candidates separately to carry out the correction of data wherever necessary or the school or such other authorities was to carry out such exercised themselves, which was in any case their duty and responsibility to do. Of course, such a Notice like Annexure-D/6 cannot be held as unusual in an admission process and hence, it may not also be just to allege any serious breach in the conduct of opposite party No.7 and other authorities whosoever involved therein but the situation of the present kind could have been easily avoided with individual intimation to the guardians of the selected candidates or undertaking the exercise by the school or such authorities sincerely and meticulously. As it is made to understand, innocently and under a genuine impression that the selection has taken place in due course, with Notice under Annexure-5 issued, the petitioner’s TC was collected from her school. As a consequence, whereof, it may also lead to a situation, where the petitioner could be left in lurch with uncertainty as to where to go after having lost a bright chance to get admission into a school of her choice.
The Court is alive to the fact that admission of the petitioner in the school of opposite party No.7 cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the selection is always provisional but under the present peculiar circumstances, it deserves a treatment befitting the peculiar situation keeping in view the future of the petitioner especially later to her T.C. to have been collected. The decision in SANATAN GOUDA (supra) is a case, where the plight of the petitioner therein was on better footing, but this Court, having given an anxious consideration to the case at hand and taking cognizance of the fact that definite lapses have taken place from the side of opposite party No.7 and others while being part of the exercise, reaches at a conclusion that the petitioner should not be made to suffer, rather, allowed admission in to Class-VI in the school as a special case, if the admission is not over by now. In other words, it is held that in the fitness of things, the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court is required to be exercised to do justice to the case.”
We are in complete agreement with the learned single Judge. We must add that the provisional selection of respondent was made on laches of omission to notice her date of birth. Appellants cannot take recourse to the general notice, on itself having made omission to verify. Based on position taken by appellants, father of respondent went and obtained transfer certificate (TC) from the school, in which respondent was reading. The learned single Judge has noted predicament respondent has been put in by omission on part of State as aforesaid and her father, to not take note of the general notice regarding age criteria for admission to class-VI.
The learned single Judge appreciated the facts to think fit to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, to overcome the administrative policy of not admitting students to a particular class as outside the contemplated age. Mr. Mohanty’s submission today is, the academic year has also ended. We, in continuation of exercising said extraordinary power direct admission be given forthwith to respondent in class-VI for ensuing academic year. So that there is no further delay caused by the litigation, we have dealt with the appeal itself on it having been moved before us today.
Mr. Mohanty expresses apprehension that this may be relied upon as precedent. It cannot be so done because of peculiar facts and circumstances in the case inviting exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Secondly, the policy is not under challenge. Consequently, we have said nothing about the age criteria, in directing admission to class-VI or for that matter any other class in Government schools.
The appeal is thus allowed and disposed of.
………………………………………