MASTER SATYAM GANDHI versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 569, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 569 
MASTER SATYAM GANDHI 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7136 of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2015. 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: School admission 
A 
B 
- Admission to XI class - Respondent-school declined 
the medical stream to the appellant-writ petitioner on the C 
ground that he is ineligible for the said stream on the basis 
of his pre-board result - Respondent-school stated that 
the appellant was offered the commerce stream but he 
categorically refused to take admission into the commerce 
stream - Held: Appellant was found ineligible and denied o 
admission in the medical stream because of his marks in 
the pre-board result and aptitude conducted by the school 
- He was given option to take admission in the commerce 
stream which he did not opt at the first instance and as a 
result admission in the commerce stream was over- High E 
Court rightly held that the relief sought for by the appellant 
cannot be granted by issuing appropriate writ directing the 
· school to admit the appellant even in the commerce 
stream - This court further stated that the students who 
study up to Class X In any school whether aided or non-
F 
aided, such students are entitled to get admission in Class 
XI in the same school unless he or she declines before 
the admission is closed - However, in which stream they 
are to be admitted, it depends upon their merits and 
performance that shall be decided by
the school authority. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
7136 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2015 in H 
569
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP 
No. 8009 of 2015. 
Malini Poduval for the Appellant. 
B 
P.H. Parekh (for Parekh & Co.,) for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J.: 1. The petitioner has preferred this 
special leave petition against the impugned order dated 
C 03.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana in CWP No.8009 of 2015. 
2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass . 
0 
3. The petitioner was a student of the respondent-school 
viz., St. Jones School, Chandigarh. The school is affiliated 
with the CBSE. The petitioner passed his Class X and was 
interviewed on 24.03.2015 for the purpose of admission in 
class XI. At the time of interview, the petitioner preferred 
E the medical stream but it was declined by the respondent-
school on the ground that he is ineligible for the said stream 
because of his pre-Board result. The petitioner allegedly . 
requested to admit him in any other stream as per his 
eligibility, but when the final list was prepared and displayed · 
F on 29.03.2015 ori the notice Board of the respondent-
school, the name of the petitioner was conspicuously absent 
in the said list. The contention of the petitioner is that he is 
a brilliant student who had been deprived of his right to 
education in the same school from where he had passed 
G class X. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition 
before the High Court
seeking a direction to the respondent-
school to admit him in class XI. 
4. The respondents-school, on the other hand, pleaded 
H that it is a private unaided minority educational institution
MASTER SATYAM GANDHI v. UNION TERRITORY, 
571 
CHANDIGARH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
and it had started class XI and XII in the year 2011-2012 A 
after getting permission from the CBSE, upgrading the 
respondent-school to the senior ,i:.0condary school. The 
respondents' further case is that by circular dated 
13.05.2014 issued by the school, it was clearly stated that 
all students cannot be accommodated in class XI because B 
of the space constraint and availability of limited seats in 
class XI as the four sections of Class X had been reduced 
to two sections in Class XI and the short-listing was done 
on the basis of students' academic performance and grades 
in the co-scholastic areas, especially attitude and values. It C 
was further averred that the petitioner applied for admission 
in Class XI in medical stream and as per aptitude test 
conducted by the respondent-school, the petitioner had an 
aptitude for commerce. 
D 
5. The respondents' further case is that the petitioner 
had even forged the signature of his parents on the 
admission form. Further counselling for the admission to 
Class XI for the academic year 2015-2016 was held and 
since the petitioner was not found to have an aptitude for E 
medical stream, he was offered a seat in commerce stream, 
to which he had categorically refused. 
6. On 23.03.2015, the list of eligible students for 
admission in Class XI was put up on the school notice board 
F 
and in a few days, the admission process was completed 
for the
main stream students. 
7. Considering the facts of the case pleaded by the 
parties, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence, G 
this special leave petition. 
8. Leave granted. 
9. We have heard Ms. Malini Poduval, learned counsel H
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10S.C.R. 
A appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned 
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 
10. By filing .:ounter affidavit, the respondent-school 
reiterated its stand that the appellant was offered the 
B commerce stream, but he had categorically refused to take 
admission into commerce stream, and thus, declined to take 
admission in the respondent-school. It is highly incorrect to 
allege that the appellant was not given admission in Class 
XI even in the commerce stream. 
c 
11. It has not been disputed by the ·appellant that he 
applied for admission in class XI in the medical stream, but 
because of his marks in the pre-board result and aptitude 
test conducted by the respondent-school, he was found 
o ineligible and was denied admission in the medical stream. 
It is also not in dispute that the appellant was given option 
to take admission in the commerce stream which he did 
not opt at the first instance, as a result the admission even 
in the commerce stream were over on 29.03.2015. The 
E High Court after taking into consideration the facts of the 
case and the relevant bye-laws of CBSE, particularly clause 
7.4, came to the conclusion that the relief sought for by the 
appellant cannot be granted by issuing appropriate writ 
directing the school to admit the appellant even in the 
F commerce stream. 
12. After con~idering the affidavits and the documents 
annexed therewith and also hearing the learned
counsel 
appearing for the parties, we do not find any reason to 
G interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 
Hence, this appeal is dismissed. 
13. Before parting with the order, it goes without saying 
that the students who study up to Class X in any school 
H whether aided or non-aided, such students are entitled to

MASTER SATYAM GANDHI v. UNION TERRITORY, 
573 
CHANDIGARH [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
get admission in Class XI in the same school unless he or A 
she declines before the admission is closed. However, in 
which stream they are to be admitted, it depends upon their 
merits and performance that shall be decided by the school 
authority. 
B 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal dismissed.