SHIVA SHANKAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ case is a minor student, who has presented this application through his father Shree Diwakar Jha, posted as Assistant Director of Agriculture at Netarhat Farm, Netarhat Police Station Mahuadaor, in the District of Palamau.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that there is a Government School, called Netarhat Residential School, located at Netarhat, where students are taught up to the higher secondary standard. It appears the School is financed and managed under the Government of Bihar. Hence, the State of Bihar through the Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Education Department is Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 in the application is the Principal of the school. The petitioner's father was transferred on the 16th October, 1968, from Barharwa in the District of Santal Parganas to Netarhat as Assistant Director of Agriculture. His case is that for the people residing in Netarhat, the only high school, within the radius of 20 miles is the school in question. If admission is refused in this school, it becomes impossible for the guardian of the child to arrange prosecution of his studies for the high school standard. The petitioner's father made an application to Respondent No. 2 for the admission of the petitioner, who was aged 14 years, in class X of the school. It may be stated here that there are only six classes in the school, the sixth and the highest class being class XI. equivalent to higher secondary and class X spoken of in paragraph 5 of the application would be next to the highest class.

(3.) The petitioner's case further is that having failed to secure his admission, his father approached the Commissioner of the Division for reservation of some seats for the children of the employees of the Government. The Commissioner also tried in the matter. Upon this the Education Department of the Government of Bihar invited comments from Respondent No. 2, who gave favourable comments for reservation of seats in the school for the children of other Government employees. There are 72 reserved seats in all the six classes of the school for the sons and daughters of the employees of the school -- employees of all kinds, members of the teaching staff, the clerical staff and the staff of the lower grades. The Principal, however, could not admit the petitioner as the Government order was not received for admission of the ward of any other Government employee. The petitioner's case is that Respondent No. 2 has acted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, of India, inasmuch as he is implementing the Government instruction No. 2892 dated the 12th August, 1965, which is referred to in his letter to the Education Department, a copy of which is Annexure '2' to the writ application, and which instruction of the Government is being attacked as violative of Article 14. With these statements, the prayer on behalf of the petitioner is to declare the Government instruction No. 2892 dated the 12th August, 1965 as ultra vires, void and illegal and to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to fill up the so-called reserved seats either by admitting the petitioner straightway or by admission taken on merits of the applicants.