VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2012 › High Court of Delhi

Master Rohan Shad Arora(Minor) Through Father and Natural Guardian and Anr v. The Registrar, University of Delhi

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
21 August 2012
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 4162/2012

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 21, 2012 pk

Case details

Parties and counsel

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 03.08.2012 % Judgment Delivered on: 21.08.2012 + WP(C) No. 4042 OF 2012 & CM APPL.8471/2012, 8761/2012 VISHED THROUGH LEGAL GUARDIAN SUSHIL KUMAR …APPELLANT Through : Mr. Ramesh K. Mishra, Adv. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain with Ms. Prerna Shah Deo and Mr. Karan Burman, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.4/GGSIPU. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. AND WP(C) No. 4162 OF 2012 & CM APPL.8646/2012 MASTER ROHAN SHAD ARORA (MINOR) THROUGH: FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.P. Agarwal, Ms. Priyadarshini Verma, Ms. Bhanita Patowary, Advocates. Versus THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI .... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocate for DU. CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: 1. Though in these two writ petitions, different educational institutions are involved and the factual matrix of the two cases is also at variance from each other, there is some commonality, albeit in different hue and colour. It was for this reason that both these petitions were taken together for hearing so that discussion on legal principles which are common to each other can be taken note of at one place. However, it is the application of these principles on the facts of these cases that will determine the fate of each of the petitions. Therefore, we proceed to take stock of the factual background of the two cases independently whereafter we would take note of the legal position and then consider the merits of each case, again, independently to arrive at the conclusions. WP(C) No. 4042 OF 2012 2. The petitioner was born on 28.12.1994 in Delhi out of the wedlock of Mr.Sushil Kumar and Ms. Shashi Kanta. His father Shri Sushil Kumar is the member of NCT of Delhi domiciled Scheduled Caste. His permanent address is in NCT of Delhi. The competent authority in Delhi has issued a caste certificate to that effect to the father of the petitioner. The aforesaid parents of the petitioner are employed in the Income Tax Department, New Delhi. The competent authority, Office of the Deputy Commissioner (New Delhi District), Delhi issued caste certificate dated 18.3.1995 to the petitioner. The certificate mentions that the petitioner or his family is the ordinary resident of Union Territory of Delhi. 3. In the year 1996, the Income Tax Department allotted a Flat No.103, T.A.-II in Vaishali, Ghaziabad, which falls under NCR to Smt. Shashi Kanta, mother of the petitioner. The allotment offer states that if Smt. Shashi Kanta or her spouse is an existing allottee of any estate office/Government accommodation in Delhi, then she would not be eligible for allotment of the same as per allotment rules. The parents/family of the petitioner shifted to the allotted accommodation as there was inconvenience in accommodation in his ancestral house in Delhi. They took possession of the said Flat on 27.12.1996. 4. In the year 1999, the schooling of the petitioner started from a nearby school in Ghaziabad named Green Field Public School, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad. In class KG, he was admitted in Deep Memorial Public School, a senior secondary school affiliated to CBSE at Deep Vihar (Ramprastha), P.O. Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad. The petitioner as a kid was admitted in the school as it was in nearby area of their accommodation allotted by the Income Tax Department. The petitioner studied throughout in the same school and passed his Class 12th in 2012. In between the parents of the petitioner continued to be in service of Income Tax Department at New Delhi. 5. The petitioner, with intention to pursue higher education, has passed to take admission

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.