Devshree Khubchandani And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1652 of 2013

1. Devshree Khubchandani D/o Shri Harish Khubchandani, Aged About 8 Years Minor Represented Through Her Natural Mother Smt. Lata Khubchandani, W/o Shri Harish Khubchandani, Aged About 41 Years, Occupation Anganbadi Worker.

2. Smt. Lata Khubchandani, W/o Shri Harish Khubchandani, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Anganbadi Worker.

Both R/o Sakri, Tehsil Takhatpur, P.S. Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G.

2. The District Education Officer Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

3. The Jain International School, Through Its Principal, Jain International School, Mungeli Road, Sakri Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 495001 ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri Ashutosh Ghade, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2/State : Shri G. Mukhopadhyay, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 11/09/2015 Challenge in this petition is to the communication/order dated 25.9.2013 made by respondent No.3 informing petitioner No.2 that admission granted to petitioner No.1 under Right of the Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been cancelled.

02. In the return dated 23.11.2013 filed by the private respondents it has been mentioned that admission of the petitioner was cancelled

pursuant to issuance of certain directions by the State authorities. However, in the return filed by the State dated 9.12.2013 document (Annexure R-1-2/2) has been filed by the State which is a letter written by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2/District Education Officer mentioning therein that studies of petitioner No.1 have already been regularized.

03. Counsel for the State submits that as studies of petitioner No.1 have already been regularized, there survives nothing in this petition for adjudication and therefore, the same may be disposed of.

04. Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that liberty may be given to respondent No.3 to raise all its claim before the State Government.

05. Counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the proposition as put forth by the State and respondent No.3.

06. In view of submissions made by the parties, the present petition stands disposed of. However, respondent No.3 would be at liberty to put forth its claim before the State Government in accordance with law. Sd/ (Pritinker Diwaker) Judge Khan