THE PRINCIPAL, CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL AND ANR.versusMS. PAYAL GUPTA AND ORS.

        THE PRINCIPAL, CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL AND ANR.                                A
                                     v.
                    MS. PAYAL GUPTA AND ORS.

                            AUGUST 21, 1995

  [S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN UDDIN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.)                          B

      Education:

      Delhi School Education Act, 1973/Delhi School Education Rules,
 ~                                                                              c
      Ss.16(3), 28(2)n·.135, 138, 145-Recognised unaided school-Admis-
sion to-School prescribing cut of level of marks in class X for admission to
Class XI-Held, once a student is admitted to a school same admission
continues class after class-No fresh admission or readmission is con-
templated from one class to another in the same school.                      D
        Appellant No. 2 a recognised unaided school, imparting education
 under 10 +2 scheme introduced by the Central Board of Secondary Educa-
 tion, with a view to upgrade the academic standard of each student,
 prescribed a cut off level of 50% marks for admission to class XI of the
 said school. Two circulars in this regard were issued in October 1993 and      E
-.:february 1994. On declaration of the results of class X by the Central
 Board of Secondary Education, the appellants asked the students who
 secured marks less than 50% in aggregate in class X to obtain their school
 leaving certificates. The affected students approached the Deputy Educa-
 tion Officer, who, by his letter dated 13.6.1994, directed that all students   F
 who passed class X should be admitted to class XI irrespective of pass
 percentage. The appellants refused to comply with the directions alleging
 that the power to regulate admission under Delhi School Education Act,
 1973 and rule 145 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 vested in the head
 of the school. The respondent, who had secured 44.5% marks in aggregate,
 and some other students filed writ petiti~ns before the High Court chal-       G
 lenging the legality of the circulars. Meanwhile the school scaled down the
 cut off level from 50% of marks to 45%, as a result of which some students
 withdrew their petitions. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the
  respondent holding a recognised unaided school could not of its own fix
 a criteria of not admitting its own students to Class XI on the basis of       H
                                       843
    844                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A pass percentage. Aggrieved, the school and its Principal filed this appeal
    by special leave.

          The appellants contended that a«!mission to Class XI being a fresh
    admission, issuance of the circulars by the Principal prescribing criteria
    for admission to class XI was in conformity with r.145 of the rules, which
B   conferred power on the head of an unaided recognised school to regulate
    admissions to the school or to any class thereof on the basis of admission
    test or result of a particular class or school.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court
c          HELD : 1.1. The scheme of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and
    the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 and a combined reading of ss.16(3),
    28(2) (g) of the Act, 1973 and Rules 135, 137 an 138 of the Rules, 1973
    establishes that once a student is admitted to a school the same admission
    continues class after class until he passes the last examination for which
D   the school gives training and no fresh admission or readmission is con·
    templated from one class to the other. Therefore, in. a Higher Secondary
    School such as the appellant School, the examination of tenth class cannot
    be regarded as a terminal examination for those who want to continue their
    study in eleventh and twelfth classes of the said school. No separate
E   criteria has been laid down in the rules for the students passing class X
    and wishing to continue their studies in eleventh the twelfth Classes.
                                                                     [850·C·QJ
         1.2. The right of a student to continue his studies further in the
    higher class, in the same school, after passing any public examination,
F   cannot be worse than the. right of a student who fails at any such public
    examination and is entitled to readmission in the same school u/r. 135 of
    the Rules. [850-A·B]
                                                                                   .....
          2. It cannot be said that after a student passes high tenth class of a
G public examination his admission to the next higher class i.e. eleventh class
    would be a fresh or readmission in the same school. Rule 145 of the Rules
    does not contemplate such a requirement. That the class X examination is
    a public examination does not make any difference. The question of an ·
    admission test or the result in a particular class or school for purposes
    of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for
H   admission in some other institution. [849-G; 850-E]
              PRINCIPAL, CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL v. MS.PAYAL[FAIZANUDDIN,J.)            845

              Km. Renuka Khuratta & Ors. v. Delhi Admi1tistratio11, 44(1991) Delhi A
         Law Times 634) held inapplicable.

                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5664 of
         1994.

               From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.94 of the Delhi High Court        B
         in C.W.P. No. 2788 of 1994.

                 Bhimrao Naik and M.P. Jha for the Appellants.

                 S.R. Bhat for the Respondent.
                                                                                       c
                 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                 FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. According to the appellants, the Central
          Board of Secondary Education introduced 10 + 2 scheme of education in
          the year 1977 providing general education up to the level of 10 + 2 class, D
          visualising two distinct stages - one up to class X and the other up to class
          XII so that the students with certain competence should alone pursue
          education beyond class X. The appellant. Cambridge School, New Delhi,
          with a view to achieve the aforesaid objective and to upgrade the academic
          standard of each student through special programme prescribed a cut off
          level of 50 per cent marks for admission to class XI of the said school. E
          Consequently, the Principal-appellant addressed a circular dated 4.10.1993
          to the parents of the students stating that the admission to class X would
          not be automatic but a cut off level was prescribed by the Cambridge
          School to the effect that a student of class X must obtain 50 per cent marks
     r    in aggregate in the. Board examination for being granted readmission in F
          class XI. In other words it would be a fresh admission even for those
          students who passed class X from the Cambridge School itself obtaining
_.
          minimum marks of 50 per cent in aggregate as the qualifying percentage ·
          for being considered for readmission in class XI. A similar circular was
          again issued in February, 1994. As a consequence of the said circulars, after G
          declaration of results of class X by the Central Board of Secondary
         Education all students who secured marks less than 50 per cent in ag-
         gregate were asked to obtain their school leaving certificates. It appears
         that the parents of such students who has secured marks less than 50 per
         cent in aggregate approached the Deputy Education Officer who by his
         letter dated 13.6.1994 directed that all students of class X should be H
    846                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A admitted into class XI without any pass percentage. But the school
    authorities took the stand that no such direction could be issued by the      \
    Directorate of Education since the power to regulate admission under                t
    Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and Rule 145 of the Delhi School
    Education Rules vests in the head of the school.
B          2. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned the respondent
    herein and three other students of the Cambridge School filed the Civil
    Writ Petition No. 2788/1994 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the
    legality and propriety of the circulars aforementioned prescribing cut off
    marks.for admission to XI class in the said school. A batch of ten students
c   had also filed a civil Writ Petition No. 2977/1994 Reema Goyal & Ors. v.
    v. Governor of Delhi & Ors. Challenging the validity of the said circulars
    prescribing the cut off marks for admission to class XI. In the mean while
    Civil Writ Petition No. 2977/1994 was withdrawn as the school authorities
    scaled down the aggregate of 50 per cent marks to. 45 per cent and the
    students admitted in the school except one or two students who had
D
    secured about 35 per cent marks in aggregate but they also withdraw their
    petition with a view to either reappear in the examination to secure 50 per   {
    cent marks or would seek admission in some other school. In the writ
    petition filed by the respondent herein and three others, two students had
    secured 45 per cent marks and, therefore, they were covered by the
E   decision of the school in scaling down the aggregate percentage and,
    therefore, they also withdraw their petition .and one student who had
    secured about 35 per cent marks also withdrew his petition with a view to
    either reappear in the examination or to seek admission elsewhere. The
    respondent herein, however, pursued the petition as she has secured 44.6
    per cent marks in aggregate and was not allowed to continue her studies       "f
F
    in Class XI in appellant's school.

          3. The case of the respondent before ether High Court was that the            ·.
    Principal and the school authorities wer~ not justified to deny admission
    to its own students who had passed class XI examination which is a public
G   examination and as neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe any off level
    of marks for promotion to XI class in the same school after passing class
    X examination and, therefore, the act of issuance of the impugned circulars   y--
                                                                                  I
    was arbitrary, illegal and without authority. The appellant contested the
    said petition by contending that the Education Commissions while recom-
H   mending general education at the secondary stage suggested that it should
                PRINCIPAL,CAMBRIDGESCHOOL v. MS.PAYAL[FAIZANUDDIN,J.]              847

           be followed by two years of diversified and vocational education and, A
           therefore, it was necessary to prescribe a cut off level of marks. The
           appellant further took the stand that when a candidate is admitted to class
           XI it is a fresh admission and in fact a case of readmission and not merely
           a case of promotion which is apparent from the scheme of 10 + 2 examina-
           tion. The High Court, however, did not agree with the stand taken by the B
           appellant and took the view that an un-aided recognised school cannot of
           its own fix a criteria of not admitting its own students to class XI unless
           they secure certain minimum percentage of marks in class X examination
           which is a public examination and if a school lays down any such criteria
           it would be arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. The High Court, there
           fore, directed the appellant. to admit the respondent herein to class XI of C
           their school which led to the filing of the present appeal.

                  4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged
           before us that Rule 145 of Delhi School Education Rules. 1973 distinctly
           provides that the Head or any un-aided recognised school shall regulate D



 •
           admissions to the school or to any class thereof on the basis of admission
           test or on the basis of result of a particular class or school and the said
           rule thus not only takes within its fold the case of readmission but the cases
           of promotion are also covered and, therefore, the issuance of circulars by
           the Principal of the school who is the head of the School, prescribing the
           criteria for readmission to class XI was in conformity with the ambit and E
           scope of Rule 145 and, as such, the Principal was fully within his powers
           in issuing the aforementioned circulars. Learned counsel for the appellant
           sought to support his arguments by an earlier decision rendered by a
           Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Km. Renuka
           Khurana & Ors. v. Delhi Administration, 44 (1991) Delhi Law Times 634.         F
 't

                  5. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the short ques-
           tion that arise for our consideration is whether the Head of a private un-
           aided school has the power to regulate admission by prescribing th.e criteria
           of cut off level of marks under Rules 145 and on that basis may deny admis-


--
 .......
           sion to the students of its own school to class XI who had passed class X, G
           Central Board of Secondary Education with marks less than 50 per cent in
           aggregate. A further question may arise whether in the aforementioned
           situation a student who passes class X would be entitled to automatic promo-
           tion to the next higher class i.e. XI Class or it would be a case of fresh or
           readmission to the next higher class in the same school.                      H
    848                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          6. There is no dispute that the appellant, Cambridge School is an
    un-aided recognised school under the provisions of Delhi School Educa-
    tion Act, 1973 (hereinafter the 'Act'). At the very out-set it may be, stated
    that Section 16 of the Act deals with admission to recognised schools.
    Sub-section (3) of Section 16 contemplates that "admission to a recognised
    school or to any class thereof shall be regulated by rules made in this
B   behalf'. Further Section 28 relates to the rule making power of the Ad-
    ministrator and clause (q) of sub-section (2) of Section.28 relates to the
    rule making power of the Administrator for admissions to a recognised
    school. In pursuance to the aforementioned rule making power the Delhi
    School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter the 'Rules') were framed.
c   Chapter XII of these Rules relate to the admission to recognised schools
    which contains Rules 131 to Rule 145. Rule 131 to 134 deal with admissions
    of students in aided schools and are not relevant for the purpose of this
    appeal as the appellant school is an un-aided recognised school. Rule 135
    prescribes the manner of admission and contemplates that no student shall
D   be admitted unless an application in the prescribed form signed by his
    parent or guardian has been submitted to the school. Rule 136 relates to
    the entry of the name of the students on the roll of the school on the date     ~ .
    on which he first attends his class. Rule 137 contemplates that admission
    shall ordinarily be made once a year and shall not be made after 31st day
    of August of the year except under certain circumstances permitted by the
E   Director. Rules 139 to 143 are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
    Rule 138, 144 and 145 are relevant and the same read as under:

            "138. Admission of failed students not to be refused - A student who
            fails at any public examination shall not, on that account, be
            refused re-admission in the school or class by the school from
F           which he had appeared at such examination".

            144. Power to issue departmental instructions - The director may
            issue instructions with regard to any matter, not covered by this
            Chapter, relating to aided schools.
G
            "145. Admission to recognised unaided schools-

            (1) The head of every recognised unaided school shall regulate
            admissions to a recognised unaided school or to any class thereof
            either on the basis of admission test or on the basis of result in a
H           particular class or school.
     PRINCIPAL, CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL v. MS.PAYAL(FAIZANUDDIN,J.)              849

         (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the provisions of this   A
         Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to admission to a recognised
         unaided school as they apply to admission to an aided school."

A reading of sub-rule (2) or rule 145 reproduced above will go to show
 that all the provisions of Chapter XII shall, so far as may be, apply to B
 admission to a recognised unaided school as they apply to admission in
aided school with the distinction that in the case of added schools it is the
Director who can issue instructions with regard to any matter not covered
by Chapter XII relating to admissions to aided schools, while in the case
 admissions to recognised un-aided school it is the Head of the recognised
un-aided school who is authorised to regulate such admissions. That being C
so, that provisions of Rule 135 will apply in the case of admission to aided
as well as un-aided schools. Rule 135, as paid earlier, directs that no
student shall be admitted to an aided school unless an application in the
prescribed form signed by his parent or guardian has been submitted to
such a school. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore contended that D
after the student passes a particular class there is fresh or readmission to
the higher class even in the same school. We are unable to persuade
ourselves to accede to this proposition. If it were so, the appellant school
would have supported the contention by producing various applications
made by the parents or guardians of students for such fresh admission or
readmission from one class to the next higher class but no such material E
was placed either before the High Court or before this Court. It may,
however~ be pointed out that it is common knowledge that once a student
is given an admission in any educational institution by making an applica-
tion in the manner prescribed by Rule 135, he is not required to submit
fresh application forms after he passes a class for his admission to the next F
higher class. Once a student is given admission in any educational institu-
tion the same continues class after class until he leaves the school. In these
facts and circumstances it is difficult to accept that after a student passes
his tenth class of a public examination his admission to the next higher class
i.e. eleventh class would be a fresh or readmission.
                                                                                 G
      7. Further it may be seen that Rule 138 reproduced above con-
templates that even a student who fails at any public examination shall not,
on that account, be refused readmission in the school or class by the school
from which he had appeared at such examination. If a student who fails at
any public examination could not be denied readmission in the School or          H
    850                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   class then it is beyond comprehension as to how a student who passed the
    public examination can be denied admission in a higher class in the same
    school from which he had appeared at such examination. That being so,
    the right of a student to continue his studies further in the higher class, in
    the same school, after passing any public examination, cannot be worse
    than the right of a student who fails at any such public examination. The
B   school of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and a combined reading
    of Sections 16(3), 28(2)(g) and Rules 135, 137 and 138 will go to show that
    once a student is admitted to a school the same admission continues class
    after class until he passes the last examination for which the school gives
    training and no fresh admission or readmission is contemplated from one
C   class to the other. Therefore, in a Higher Secondary School such as the
    one in question, the examination of tenth class cannot be regarded as a
    terminal examination for those who want to continue their study in eleventh
    and twelfth classes of the said school. No separate criteria has been laid
    down in the rules for the students passing class X and wishing to continue
D   their studies in eleventh and twelfth classes.

          8 Now coming to the provisions of sub-rule (1) or rule 145 which is
    the sheet anchor of the appellant's case, we do not find anything in the said
    rule which contemplates or requires fresh or readmission of a student in
    the same school after he passes an examination from the said school. That
E   the class X examination is a public examination does not make any dif-
    ference. The question of an admission test or the result in a particular class
    or school for purposes of admission would arise only if a student of one
    institution goes for admission in some other institution. The question of

F
    admission test on the basis of result in a particular class will not be taken
    info account in the case of a student of the same school who passes the
    public examination. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to
                                                                                     -
    produce or show any provision in the Act or the Rules which specifically
    contemplates that readmission or fresh admission is necessary to every next
    higher class after a student passes out a particular class nor he could show
    any provision of law authorising the head of an educational institution to
G   prescribe a cut off level of marks for continuance of further studies in
    higher class in the ·same school by a student who passes a public examina-
    tion.

        9. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court
H in the case of Km. Renuka Khurana (supra) and relied on by the learned
         . PRINCIPAL, CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL v. MS.PAYAL[FAIZANUDDIN,J.)          851

      counsel for the appellant, is not of any assistance to the appellant as the A
                                          1
      question of power of the Director to issue instructions to un-aided sch1Jols
      alone was the point in controversy and the question of power of Head of
      the school to regulate admission on either of the two basis i.e. on the basis
      of the test or on the basis of result in previous class was not directly in
      issue. It was not a case of admission or readmission in the same school but
      in a different institution altogether.
                                                                                    B

            10. In view of the above discussion the appeal fails and is hereby
      dismissed. No order as to costs.

      R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.




...