HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION Nos. 3953 & 7893 OF 2011 . DATED 29th April, 2011. BETWEEN Mayank R.Jain and ors …….Petitioners in WP.No. 3953 of 2011 Mayank R.Jain, rep. by his father RajeshC.Jain ……Petitioner inWP.No. 7893 of 2011 …Petitioner And Central Board of Secondary Education, rep. by Secretary, Annanagar West, Chennai and anr ……….Respondents inWP.No.3953 of 2011 Principal, Chirec Public School, Kondapur, Hyderabad …..Respondent in WP.No. 7893 of 2011. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION Nos. 3953 & 7893 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No 3953 of 2011 is filed to declare Norm No.8 of Guidelines and Discipline framed by the Principal, Chirec Public School, respondent herein, with the approval of Central Board of Secondary Education, represented by its Secretary, Chennai, as harsh and arbitrary being uncontrolled power to punish the students without affording any opportunity and consequently to set aside the order dated 3.2.2011 passed by the Principal of the said school. Writ Petition No. 7893 of 2011 is filed to declare the two letters dated 21.2.2011 issued by the Principal suspending the petitioner from the said school as illegal and violative of Norms No.4 to 7 of the Guidelines and Discipline of the said school. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioners have assailed the action of the respondents in suspending the student- Master.Mayaank R.Jain. In as much as subject matter in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Master Mayaank R.Jain, the petitioner, had been admitted into LKG class in Chirec Public School, Cyberabad, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the school’) and now is studying 7th class. On 3.2.2011 the Principal of the said school, respondent in both these cases, sent a letter dated 3.2.2011 stating that the petitioner was expelled from the school as he involved in a serious breach of conduct which is totally against the norms of the school. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3953 of 2011 as stated supra. Thereafter, the respondent-principal of the said school sent an e-mail and also letter dated 21.2.2011 communicating the decision of the school stating that the petitioner was suspended from the school with immediate effect. Questioning that part of the action of the Principle, Writ Petition No. 7893 of 2011 is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent-principal of the school has not followed the procedure laid down in Norms No.4 to 7 of the Guidelines and Discipline of the institution in suspending the petitioner from the school. He contended that the management of the school should have taken a sympathetic approach keeping in view of the future academic career of the student (petitioner herein) and the depression and the trauma that are being undergone by the parents of the petitioner. He further contended that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is drastic and harsh in nature, resulting in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the punishment of losing of classes from 2nd February 2011 till the end of the academic year suffered by the petitioner is sufficient enough for the subject incident. The respondent-principal of the school filed separate counter affidavits in both the Writ Petitions, stating that the petitioner was found guilty of smoking within the school premises and as per Norm No.8 of the Guidelines and Discipline of the school, the petitioner has been found guilty of the said misconduct and hence expelled without any notice; that the petitioner had been warned for indiscipline acts within the school premises on several occasions and the same has been intimated to his parents, who in turn gave an undertaking to the school that they would abide by any of the decision of the school in case their ward is found guilty of smoking. It is stated that in all the correspondence dated 21.2.2011, 22.2.2011 and 3.2.2011 the decision of the school in so far as expulsion of the petitioner from the school is intimated in clear terms. It is stated that the school had taken a lenient view and had permitted the petitioner to complete 7th class and the suspension was altered from immediate expulsion to suspension till the end of the academic year and that on 26.2.2011 the parents of the petitioner had been informed that the petitioner can pursue education in other school after completion of 7th class in the respondent-school and gave an option of even writing examinations or to take the annual report basing upon the continuous comprehensive evaluation. Denying the contention of the petitioner that the respondent-school flouted the rules framed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), it is stated that the CBSE would never prescribe the rules as to how the school ought to be administered and the set of rules placed before this Court are framed by the school by name Navasrachana School in Vadodara and by no stretch of the imagination the petitioner can expect the respondent school to follow the rules of another private school. It is further stated that the respondent has referred the case of the petitioner to Parent Advisory Committee and Disciplinary Committee meeting held on 4.3.2011 and it has been unanimously resolved by the said committees as to removal of the petitioner from the school in view of loss of trust on the petitioner’s parents. It is further stated that the norms framed by the school pertaining to zero tolerance policy in case of drug abuse, smoking, alcohol consumption, sex abuse and indulging in activities which bring the school to disrepute and students found indulging in any of these activities or in possession of any drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, incendiary device, cigarettes lighters, match boxes, fire crackers etc., or a weapon in the school or out side the school while in or out of the school uniform will be expelled without any notice or discussion and the parents of the petitioners are well aware of the said norm and has also signed the undertaking of the said norms/rules & regulations. It is also stated that within the frame work of the Board guidelines, the school enjoys the discretion of formulating its own policies to keep up its own standard in terms of facilities offered, additional opportunities to students as well as staff members and also disciplinary norms for the students. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent-school. Perused the case files scrupulously. It is common knowledge that the schools are set up with a vision of nurturing children into future responsible citizens of the country and to achieve its respective goals. It is also common knowledge that such private schools would frame its own code of discipline, which has to be essentially followed by each and every students of the said school in as much as they are framed for the betterment of the school and the students pursuing education therein. One such school is the respondent-school. From the counter affidavits, it is clear that the petitioner-Master Mayaank R.Jain earlier has also violated the disciplinary norms of the school on three occasions and he had also signed the discipline register and the same has been intimated to his parents, who in turn gave an undertaking to the school that they would abide by any of the decision of the school in case their ward is found guilty of misconduct. It is stated that in all the correspondence dated 21.2.2011, 22.2.2011 and 3.2.2011 the decision of the school in so far as expulsion of the petitioner from the school was intimated in clear terms. The substance of the letter dated 3.2.2011 inter alia reads as under: “On the basis of the investigations conducted in school, it was found that Mayank was found guilty of serious misconduct. After further questioning him today, he has agreed to having smoked in the school premises. This Court have serious implications for the rest of the students and lead to undesirable consequences. This also involves a serious breach of conduct which is totally against the norms of the school. As you are aware the school follows a zero tolerance policy towards acts of indiscipline. Therefore, we regret to inform you that we have no other option left but to expel him from school with immediate effect.” The body of the letter dated 21.2.2011 sent by the respondent-school to the petitioner reads as under: “We would like to bring to your notice that your ward Mayank Jain of Class VIIC has been indulging in activities which are totally undesirable and could lead to severe consequences. This involves a serious breach of conduct which is totally against the norms of the school. As you are aware the school follows a zero tolerance policy towards acts of indiscipline. Therefore, we regret to inform you that he has been suspended from the school with immediate effect. The letter sent to you earlier dated 3rd February, 2011 on the subject may be disregarded.” From the above, it is clear that the respondent-school had taken a decision to expel the petitioner with immediate effect initially, which was revoked subsequently substituting with the decision of suspension. In all these correspondences, the decision of the respondent-school in so far as expulsion of the petitioner from the school is made in clear terms following its norms framed under the Guidelines and Discipline. The parent advisory committee and disciplinary committee of the school has unanimously resolved in the meeting held on 4.3.2011 for removal of the petitioner from the school in view of loss of trust on his parents and keeping in view the best interest of the school and other students pursuing education in it. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondent- school has flouted its norms framed under the head of Guidelines and Discipline and that the decision of the school is harsh. It may be noted that the disciplinary norms framed by the school are in the best interest of the students of the school. In the case of Al Saints High School Vs. Government of Anmdhra Pradesh {1980 (2) SCC 478} the Apex Court upheld the powers of private and unaided educational institutions to frame its own rules in managing its affairs and administration and they would be the sole authority of the educational institution. The respondent-school herein is a private and unaided institution having absolute right in so far running the school and its related administrative activities and the respondent school has absolute powers to manage and administer its affairs without intervention of either the State or any third party. Pertinent to note, the sole motive of the school in framing disciplinary guidelines is to ensure proper discipline upon the students of the school which enables the child to evolve as a future responsible citizen of the society. It is not out of place to mention herein that, if the parents of the petitioner are aggrieved of any of the norms of the respondent- school, in particular Norm No.8, they might have questioned the same at the threshold of the admission of his son into LKG in the respondent-school. After lapse of 8 years of their son completing education in the petitioner-school and when their son was ended from the school on account of finding guilty of smoking, it is not proper on their part to question now alleging that Norm No.8 is harsh and arbitrary being uncontrolled power to punish the students without affording any opportunity. The parents of the petitioner have signed the undertaking that they would abide by the norms of the respondent-school and also shall abide by any of the decision taken by the school authorities in case their ward would found guilty of misconduct violating any of the norms of the school. Having accepted the same, in my considered opinion, it is not open for the petitioner or his parents to question the norms of the school in these Writ Petitions in as much as those norms are framed only to maintain minimum and the best standards in imparting education to the students and to nurture them as good and responsible citizens of the country. Perhaps, this Court has all sympathy towards the petitioner being suspended from the respondent school. Rightly too, the petitioner will be losing an opportunity to continue his education in the respondent school along with batch mates. But, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct the respondents to violate the mandate of the norms framed under Guidelines and Discipline under the guise of the sympathy being pleaded by the petitioner and his parents. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 29th April, 2011. Msnro