Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J. - (1.) The petitioner applied on 17th November, 1989 to the Principal of She Don Bosco School in Calcutta for the admission bis son in Class I for the Session 1990-91 on payment of Rs. 20/- with two self-addressed damped envelope as per admission notice. The petitioner and bis son was informed about the interview scheduled on 23rd December, 1989 between 10 a. m. and 10-30 a. m. It is stated that the son is otherwise qualified for the admission in Class I as ho bad been prepared for admission in the said School as per the syllabus. The petitioner with his son was present before the Interview Committee on the scheduled date and submitted duly filled an admission Form No. 427 with photographs as required. The petitioner's claims that his son's performance in the Interview was very satisfactory when he was asked questions orally in Arithmetic od subtraction as well as in writing in English. On the petitioner's query the Rector and the Principal of the Don Bosco School assured that considering the age group of the children the local candidates would be given priority, and as the petitioner resides near to the said School he was hopeful. The allegation is that She School authorities failed to communicate the result of the Interview to the petitioner though they were bound to communicate. The petitioner alleges mala fide intention on the part of the School authorities as his' son was not allowed admission in the Session which is started on 22nd March, 1990. It is further alleged that taking the advantage of minority institution or of Article 30 of the Constitution of India the School cannot refuse or deny the admission of the petitioner's son. It is further alleged that the Selection List prepared by the School authorities was not only discriminatory but violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The allegation that the School authorities failed to consider the local residents is also repeated more than once. The petitioner goes further and alleges that the entire procedure for selection of students in Class has been vitiate and the State Government and the Central Government have also failed to control the said institution. He further stated shall the process of oral interview is defective as there is no record of performance of the candidates and as such the meritorious students like the petitioner's son was deprived of admission.
(2.) The petitioner states that the Don Bosco School cannot act arbitrarily as it has been receiving State Government's Dearness Allowances for teachers through the Deputy Director of School Education, Anglo-Indian Section, and further the said School is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education being the Delhi Board under the control of the Ministry of Education. His contention is that the School could not refuse the admission of his son because if is an institution established and administered by a minority but not for some particular class. The petitioner waited for long and then sent a letter by registered post on 16th March, 1990 to the Assistant Principal (Primary Section) of the Don Bosco School but did not get any reply and therefore is compelled to move the Hon'ble High Court.
(3.) The Principal of the Don Bosco School, respondent No.4, himself has affirmed the Affidavit-in-Opposition. The Affidavit, spates that the writ petition is not maintainable as the Don Bosco School is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is formally recognised by the Education Directorate of the West Bengal Government and is affiliated to the Indian Council of School Examination at New Delhi. It is specifically seated in the said Affidavit that the School is a private and/or non-Government Educational Institution not receiving any grant-in-aid from the Government and is managed by the Christian Missionary of St. Don Bosco. It is stated that the admission notice indicates that the admission to Class I granted on merit for which the interview would be the criterion and also that there would be only one interview and no other test. The authorities prepared a list of both selected and no a-selected candidates and thereafter intimated the parents/guardians in printed form whether the School would or would not be able to accommodate the child or children who had applied for admission. It is further stated that a Notice was affixed in the Notice Board of the School on the 27th February, 1990 after the Interview and was stated therein that after by 9th March, 1990 if no reply was received regarding admission or otherwise of any candidate then contact should be made with the School authorities. As the petitioner's son was found not to have come out within 200 children who were successful, it was not deliberate or otherwise and there was no irregularity of any kind. It is strongly denied that the institution bad any mala fide intention or motive towards She petitioner or his child.;