Master Hardik Sharma Through Mother Geeta Sharma v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3838/2018 & CM Nos.15207-208/2018 MASTER HARDIK SHARMA THROUGH MOTHER GEETA SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Khagesh B. Jha, Adv.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Anjum Javed, ASC with Mr.Devendra Kumar, Adv. & Mr.H.M. Meena, Pairvi Officer for R-1.

Mr.Kamal Gupta & Ms.Tripti Gupta & Ms.Sanjana Gupta, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 18.04.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 08.01.2018 issued by respondent No.2-school whereby his admission was cancelled on the ground that the income certificate produced by his father at the time of his admission in the school has now been found to be forged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father had received the initial certificate from document writer sitting outside the SDM Office and was never aware that the such certificate was forged in any manner. He further submits that since the

petitioner's father belongs to the EWS category, he has after passing of the impugned order applied for a fresh certificate which has been made available on 28.01.2018. He submits that the fresh certificate has been verified by the petitioner himself from the e-website of respondent no.1. Placing reliance on a decision dated 22.01.2018 of this Court, passed in W.P.(C) No.453/2018, he prays that the impugned order may be quashed and respondent no.2 be directed to re-admit the petitioner in the school.

Mr.Kamal Gupta, Advocate who appears for respondent No.2school on advance notice fairly submits that the respondent No.2school has also verified the said fresh income certificate and found the same to be genuine. He submits that keeping in view the earlier decisions of this Court, the respondent No.2 will re-admit the petitioner immediately without any delay. He also submits that since the petitioner has missed some part of the curriculum, in case the need so arises, the school will take adequate steps that the petitioner is able to cope up with his classmates.

The petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No.2 school to re-admit the petitioner within three days. However, in view of the fact which clearly establishes that the petitioner's admission in the school was initially based on a forged certificate, the petitioner is directed to pay a costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

It is however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the investigation being made in respect of the income certificate furnished by the petitioner's father. REKHA PALLI, J APRIL 18, 2018 gm