1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.5541 of 2007 Sanjay Baburao Chavan & ors. ... .. Petitioners v/s. The President, Sangli Shikshan Sanstha City High school, Gaonbhag, Sangli & ors. ... .. Respondents Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure for petitioners. Mr.G.S.Godbole for respondent No.3. Mrs.M.P.Thakur , AGP respondent Nos.4 to 7. ----- CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 14 th January 2008 P.C. : 1. According to the petitioners, petitioners 1 and 2 are the President and the Secretary respectively of a parents' association which is an unregistered entity. The petitioners have prayed that respondent Nos.1 to 3 be directed to give admission to their children who were taking pre- primary eduction in respondent Nos.1 to 3–institutes, to the first standard. According to the petitioners, their children were admitted in pre- primary section of respondents 1 to 3 2 schools in the academic year 2005- 2006 for “Lahan Gat”. Thereafter respondents 1 to 3 continued their admission in the “Motha Gat” of the said school for the academic year 2006- 2007. In the academic year 2005- 2006, according to the petitioners the fees were arbitrarily increased. The petitioners, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.748 of 2007 in this court. The said petition is pending. 2. The case of the petitioners is that since the children were permitted to attend pre- primary school it was incumbent on respondents 1 to 3 to admit them to the first standard. The petitioners are relying on Government Resolution dated 8.9.1999 which according to the petitioners states that the schools which run pre- primary section with primary section should while giving admission to the students to the first standard, give preference to the students who are taking pre- primary education in their school. According to the petitioners in defiance to this Government Resolution, the respondents have refused to give admission to their children. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at great 3 length. He has drawn our attention to the Government Resolution dated 8.9.1999. He submitted that this Government Resolution requires that the educational trust which conducts pre- primary classes as also primary classes, should while admitting the students to the primary classes give preference to the students who have taken admission in pre- primary classes of that school. He further submitted that this Government Resolution is applicable to respondents 1 to 3 and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to give preference to the children of the petitioners and give them admission in the primary section of the school. He also submitted that the basic objection of the respondents was that the petitioners have not paid the fees. He submitted that the petitioners have paid the fees of their children yet respondents 1 to 3 did not admit them in the primary section of their school. Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for respondent No.3, seriously disputed this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that out of 34 students, 18 students have not paid any fees at all and 4 14 students have paid part of the fees. Later on, the entire amount was sought to be paid which was returned by the respondents because instead of paying individual fees, some amount was sent in the name of an association. 4. The basic grievance of the petitioners is about non- admission of the petitioners' children to the first standard. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rise in the fees. They have filed a petition challenging the rise in the fees, which is pending. They did not pay the fees at the right time. Considering that career of young children is involved the school authorities allowed the children to attend the school despite non payment of fees. However, their admission cannot be continued in the first standard without payment of fees. The fees appear to have been sent through an association much later. It is also important to note that by now all the seats are filled. Assuming Government Resolution dated 8.9.1999 is applicable to the 2nd respondent if fees are not paid students cannot be admitted. We deem it fit to quote paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed by Dr.Joshi, 5 Secretary of the 1st respondent, which reads as follows:- “I say that apart from the fact that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and apart from the fact that considering the aforesaid factual and legal position, no relief whatsoever deserves to be granted in favour of the Petitioners; I wish to point out that in so far as the Respondents No.2 and 3 Schools are concerned, there are absolutely no vacancies in the First standard and, with a view to accommodate the children who were attending the Kinder Gartends conducted by the Respondent No.1 and with a view to absorb the students of parents who have been transferred to Sangli from other places in the current academic year, admissions more than the sanctioned strength in the Respondent No.2 and 3 Schools have already been granted. I say that the Respondents No.2 and 3 Schools have already started their academic year w.e.f. 15 th June 2007 and even the First Unit Test has been completed. At this juncture, I wish to draw the Court's kind attention to the provisions of Secondary Schools Code and particularly Instruction No.52.2 which mandates that the School must do actual instructional work for not less than 195 days in an academic year. I say that a student is required to attend the School for the minimum prescribed days. Under Guideline No.201, it is provided that admissions shall ordinarily be given within a period of 20 days of the opening of the School for the new year. Under Rule 20.2, there is a requirement of at least 75% attendance of the total number of working days. I say that in such a situation, it is now practically and legally impossible to grant admission to the wards of the Petitioners apart from the fact that on account of the conduct of the Petitioners, their children are not entitled to get admission in the Respondent Nos.2 and 6 3 Schools.” 5. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid affidavit filed by Dr.Joshi, Secretary of the 1st respondent, it is not possible for us to entertain this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)