MASTER SATYAM GANDHIversusUNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

                     [2015] 10 S.C.R. 569


                 MASTER SATYAM GANDHI                              A
                               v.
       UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 7136 of 2015)
                   SEPTEMBER 16, 2015.                             B
           [M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
       Education/Educational Institutions: School admission
  - Admission to XI class - Respondent-school declined
  the medical stream to the appellant-writ petitioner on the       C
  ground that he is ineligible for the said stream on the basis
  of his pre-board result - Respondent-school stated that
  the appellant was offered the commerce stream but he
  categorically refused to take admission into the commerce
  stream - Held: Appellant was found ineligible and denied         o
  admission in the medical stream because of his marks in
  the pre-board result and aptitude conducted by the school
  - He was given option to take admission in the commerce
  stream which he did not opt at the first instance and as a
  result admission in the commerce stream was over- High           E
  Court rightly held that the relief sought for by the appellant
  cannot be granted by issuing appropriate writ directing the
· school to admit the appellant even in the commerce
  stream - This court further stated that the students who
  study up to Class X In any school whether aided or non-          F
  aided, such students are entitled to get admission in Class
  XI in the same school unless he or she declines before
  the admission is closed - However, in which stream they
  are to be admitted, it depends upon their merits and
  performance that shall be decided by the school authority.       G

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
 7136 of 2015

     From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2015 in               H
                              569
570        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A     High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP
      No. 8009 of 2015.

         Malini Poduval for the Appellant.

          P.H. Parekh (for Parekh & Co.,) for the Respondents.
 B
         The Order of the Court was delivered by

      M. Y. EQBAL, J.: 1. The petitioner has preferred this
  special leave petition against the impugned order dated
C 03.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
  Haryana in CWP No.8009 of 2015.

         2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass .

        3. The petitioner was a student of the respondent-school
 0
  viz., St. Jones School, Chandigarh. The school is affiliated
  with the CBSE. The petitioner passed his Class X and was
  interviewed on 24.03.2015 for the purpose of admission in
  class XI. At the time of interview, the petitioner preferred
E the medical stream but it was declined by the respondent-
  school on the ground that he is ineligible for the said stream
  because of his pre-Board result. The petitioner allegedly .
  requested to admit him in any other stream as per his
  eligibility, but when the final list was prepared and displayed ·
F on 29.03.2015 ori the notice Board of the respondent-
  school, the name of the petitioner was conspicuously absent
  in the said list. The contention of the petitioner is that he is
  a brilliant student who had been deprived of his right to
  education in the same school from where he had passed
G class X. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition
  before the High Court seeking a direction to the respondent-
  school to admit him in class XI.

       4. The respondents-school, on the other hand, pleaded
 H that it is a private unaided minority educational institution
    MASTER SATYAM GANDHI v. UNION TERRITORY,                  571
          CHANDIGARH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

and it had started class XI and XII in the year 2011-2012 A
after getting permission from the CBSE, upgrading the
respondent-school to the senior ,i:.0condary school. The
respondents' further case is that by circular dated
13.05.2014 issued by the school, it was clearly stated that
all students cannot be accommodated in class XI because B
of the space constraint and availability of limited seats in
class XI as the four sections of Class X had been reduced
to two sections in Class XI and the short-listing was done
on the basis of students' academic performance and grades
in the co-scholastic areas, especially attitude and values. It C
was further averred that the petitioner applied for admission
in Class XI in medical stream and as per aptitude test
conducted by the respondent-school, the petitioner had an
aptitude for commerce.
                                                               D
      5. The respondents' further case is that the petitioner
had even forged the signature of his parents on the
admission form. Further counselling for the admission to
Class XI for the academic year 2015-2016 was held and
since the petitioner was not found to have an aptitude for E
medical stream, he was offered a seat in commerce stream,
to which he had categorically refused.

     6. On 23.03.2015, the list of eligible students for
admission in Class XI was put up on the school notice board   F
and in a few days, the admission process was completed
for the main stream students.

     7. Considering the facts of the case pleaded by the
parties, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence, G
this special leave petition.

    8. Leave granted.

    9. We have heard Ms. Malini Poduval, learned counsel      H
572       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 10S.C.R.


A appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned
  Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

        10. By filing .:ounter affidavit, the respondent-school
   reiterated its stand that the appellant was offered the
 B commerce stream, but he had categorically refused to take
   admission into commerce stream, and thus, declined to take
   admission in the respondent-school. It is highly incorrect to
   allege that the appellant was not given admission in Class
   XI even in the commerce stream.
 c
         11. It has not been disputed by the ·appellant that he
   applied for admission in class XI in the medical stream, but
   because of his marks in the pre-board result and aptitude
   test conducted by the respondent-school, he was found
 o ineligible and was denied admission in the medical stream.
   It is also not in dispute that the appellant was given option
   to take admission in the commerce stream which he did
   not opt at the first instance, as a result the admission even
   in the commerce stream were over on 29.03.2015. The
 E High Court after taking into consideration the facts of the
   case and the relevant bye-laws of CBSE, particularly clause
   7.4, came to the conclusion that the relief sought for by the
   appellant cannot be granted by issuing appropriate writ
   directing the school to admit the appellant even in the
 F commerce stream.

        12. After con~idering the affidavits and the documents
   annexed therewith and also hearing the learned counsel
   appearing for the parties, we do not find any reason to
 G interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
   Hence, this appeal is dismissed.

        13. Before parting with the order, it goes without saying
   that the students who study up to Class X in any school
 H whether aided or non-aided, such students are entitled to
     MASTER SATYAM GANDHI v. UNION TERRITORY,                573
           CHANDIGARH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

get admission in Class XI in the same school unless he or A
she declines before the admission is closed. However, in
which stream they are to be admitted, it depends upon their
merits and performance that shall be decided by the school
authority.
                                                            B
Devika Gujral                            Appeal dismissed.