Nandani Yadav v. The Heritage School And ORS

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3741/2016 NANDANI YADAV ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Shabeena Anjum with Mr.Mohd.

Amanullah and Mr.M.Tariq, Advocates.

versus THE HERITAGE SCHOOL AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.K.P.Sundar Rao with Mr.Prateek Tewari, Advocates for R-1.

Mr.Siddharth Dutta, Advocate for R2 & 3/GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 12.05.2016 Present writ petition has been filed challenging the expulsion letter dated 28th May, 2015 whereby the admission of the minor petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the income certificate forwarded by his father was found to be fake and forged. Learned counsel for petitioner states that even fresh income certificate of the parents of the minor petitioner still discloses their actual income as less than Rs.1 lakh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the orders dated 21st January, 2016 and 26th February, 2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 557/2016, wherein this Court directed the school authorities not to cancel the admissions of the minors on the ground of the misdeeds of their fathers.

Learned counsel for the respondent-School states that the seats in EWS category are still available with it and the minor petitioner can be accommodated in the school.

Learned counsel for GNCTD states that recently the GNCTD has simplified the procedure for issuance of an income certificate. He also confirms that the new valid income certificate is genuine. He has handed over a copy of verification certificate dated 10th May, 2016 issued by the Tehsildar, Rohini. The same is taken on record. As the issue involves the education of a minor and a genuine income certificate has subsequently been furnished and since no fault can be attributed to the minor, this Court takes a lenient view and directs that the admission of the minor petitioner be restored and not cancelled subject to a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Delhi within a period of two weeks. This Court may mention that in the case of Master Jai Raikwar and Ors. Vs. The Heritage School and Ors., W.P.(C) No.2219/2016, it has allowed a similar writ petition.

Needless to say that the minor petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits/entitlements under the said group. However, this Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion with regard to the criminal proceedings.

With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J MAY 12, 2016 KA