IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4826 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 21, 2009 Sakshi Mittal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.S. Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 & 4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to define and adopt a transparent procedure viz. draw of lots for admissions to L.K.G. in the School. Prayer has further been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing admissions CWP No.4826 of 2009 [2] made for the academic year 2009-2010 and a direction to the respondents to make the selection denovo by adopting a transparent method. Learned counsel for the respondent – State contends that no Government grant is being given to St. Joseph’s Convent Secondary School, Bathinda. In view of the fact that no aid is being given, respondent No.3 (School) is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has referred to Kriti Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Education & Another, AIR 2007 Delhi 179, in particular Para 10 and 11 which read as under:- “10. The position in law is, therefore, absolutely clear that the unaided minority institutions have the complete freedom insofar as the procedure to be adopted for admissions are concerned. This is, of course, subject to the larger interest of public safety, national security and national integrity which have been referred to in the Supreme Court decision above. It is, therefore, clear that the Ganguly Committee was alive to the situation and specifically provided in paragraph 5.8 that the rights of minority schools established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution to have the freedom to administer and admit children remain safeguarded. The Committee, therefore, consciously, in view of the Constitutional mandate, did not interfere with the admission procedure to be adopted by such schools. 11. A submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the exception granted to such a minority school was only with respect to and limited to category No.7, that is, with respect to School Specific Criteria and was, consequently, limited only to 20 points. Therefore, according to him, as in the case of the schools for children of persons belonging to the armed forces, the school could give full 20 points for such persons under this category, minority schools could, at best, give 20 points under this category to the applicants from the minority community. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is what is meant by the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 4.7 of the recommendations also. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. A reading of CWP No.4826 of 2009 [3] paragraph 4.7 makes it clear that while schools which cater to those from the armed forces have been given liberty to give full weightage for children of parents serving in the armed forces. Under the school specific criteria, insofar as the minority schools are concerned, their rights have been clearly safeguarded not only with regard to admitting children of the minority community but also other children in general. This is further buttressed by the contents of 5.8 which are quite explicit. And, in any event, this is the law as declared by the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar (supra). Unaided minority schools are, therefore, not covered by the Ganguly Committee Recommendations. In these circumstances, the writ petition must fail. There shall be no order as to costs.” Considering the fact that respondent No.3 does not get any aid from the State, I am of the considered opinion that in the matter of admission, in view of the cited judgment, no writ petition would be maintainable to regulate the admission process in the said School. I however find that admission was given to the petitioner vide interim order dated 26.3.2009. The petitioner would be allowed to continue as a student of the respondent-School. This shall however not be treated as a precedent. (AJAI LAMBA) May 21, 2009 JUDGE avin