MAHESWARI MOHAPATRA Vs. MAHANADI COAL FIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 being a minor student has called in question the sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) of Annexure-3 under the heading 'Admission to Std.-XI (Science stream)' through her father (petitioner No. 2) as she was thrown out from the zone of consideration for admission to the higher secondary course even though she was otherwise eligible being the student of the same school (o.p. No. 3).

(2.) It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that opp. party No. 3 D.A.V. Public School, MCL, Kalinga Area is wholly financed by Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (in short, 'MCL') providing education from L.K.G. to Class XII. The petitioner No. 2 being an employee of MCL his daughter (petitioner No. 1) took admission in the school of opposite party No. 3 and passed in 1st. Division in the examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (Annexure 2). After the result was published by the CBSE, she opted to take admission in the same school with the subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology along with Computer application. The conditions mentioned in Annexure-3 for admission to Class XI is that a candidate must have secured 60% in Class X in aggregate. In addition to that he/she must secure 60% of marks in each of the subjects i.e. Mathematics & Science. According to her averments, she should have been given admission being a ward of MCL employee and not the students of other school or the wards of any other employee even though she was not qualifying as per the brochure (Annexure-3). She has alleged that opposite party No. 3 intentionally in order to divert the vacancy to the outsiders for collecting higher tuition fee along with premium has deprived her to take admission in Class XI. It is also her case that the authority (opp. party No. 3) has added the obnoxious condition to eject some of the candidates from the zone of consideration for the year 2004-2005. The matter was brought to the notice of the authorities of MCL under Annexure-4 by her father, but since it yielded no result she has come with the prayer to quash sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) of Annexure-3 under the heading of 'Admission to Std.-XI (Science stream)'.

(3.) The Principal, DAV Public School, MCL, Kalinga Area (opposite party No. 3) filed counter affidavit denying the allegations alleged by the petitioner. According to him, as the petitioner did not come into the zone of consideration, she was not considered for the admission. It is admitted by him that the school is sponsored by MCL and directly controlled and governed by the DAV, CMC, New Delhi. It is further stated that Clause (ii) specifying qualification and percentage of marks was adhered even in the previous year and it is not a new insertion to deprive the petitioner No. 1 from admission. Only to accommodate the wards of MCL the percentage of Mathematics and Science were reduced by 5% i.e. to 55% instead of 60% as per the prospectus. But, the petitioner has secured only 44% both in Mathematics and Science for which she was not given admission. It is also stated that Annexure-3 is on the basis of criteria fixed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangagthana, an Educational Agency, managed by the Ministry of Human Resources, Govt. of India and the opposite party No. 3 followed the admission guidelines and found petitioner No. 1 ineligible for fresh admission in Class XI. It has been further mentioned in Paragraph 14 of the counter that DAV College Managing Committee has been running the school with MCL vide an agreement dated 15-2-1995 between the DAV, CMC, New Delhi and MCL headquarters at Burla, Sambalpur. According to the agreement, the Principal (opp. party No. 3) can also give admission to the outsiders while giving preference to the wards of MCL within the norms of the prospectus. Since the petitioner No. 1 has not secured 55% of marks both in Mathematics & Science, she was rightly not admitted into Class XI even though she was reading in the same school.