Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds single Judge's verdict in Vivek High School case
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, May 1
Just over two years after a single Judge dismissed petitions filed by a Vivek High School student’s father challenging his son’s alleged suspension from the institution, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the judgment.
The case has its genesis in a complaint by father-Sanjeev Garg alleging that his son was subjected to corporal punishment and had to suffer mental harassment and torture.
Taking up the appeal against the single Judge’s verdict, the Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted the bona fide of the petitioner-appellant-father was under doubt.
It was evident from the instance that an offer was given to the petitioner-appellant to continue with his son’s education in the respondent-school. The offer came during a meeting held on April 21, 2017, under the chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Education, UT. But he failed to respond to the offer and, rather, sought time to respond.
Another aspect required to be kept in mind was that the petitioner-appellant’s daughter was also a student of same school in its Mohali branch. “In the case of his daughter as well, various complaints have been stated to be made against the management of the said school, which speaks volumes of the conduct and behaviour of the parents, who are not concerned to inject a sense of discipline in their child, but left no stone unturned to indulge in multifarious litigations without bothering about academic career of their ward,” the Bench added.
Referring to the issue of the student’s harassment and awarding of compensation, the Bench added that the UT Administration had come out with a written statement that all complaints made by the petitioner-appellant with regard to corporal punishment were found to be false after being duly inquired into.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice Moudgil asserted that an order dated December 24, 2016, passed in the matter was merely a communication informing the parents that their son had been found in possession of cigarettes on the last day of the school before the winter break. It was decided not to permit him to attend the classes from January to March 2017.
A perusal of the communication nowhere suggested that the education was curtailed or the student was suspended. It was, rather, categorically stated therein that the student could take the final examination without the payment of fee for the quarter.
As far as the transfer certificate was concerned, it was not a case of immediate termination of the student’s education. Sufficient time of almost three months was given to make alternative arrangements for future studies. His current session was not at all disturbed in any manner whatsoever.
“Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the communication dated December 24, 2016, is not an order of expulsion, rather was a considerate and liberal approach to ensure that future studies of the ward of the petitioner-appellant do not get affected,” Justice Moudgil asserted.
What the division bench observed
Another aspect required to be kept in mind was that the petitioner-appellant’s daughter was also a student of same school in its Mohali branch. “In the case of his daughter as well, various complaints have been stated to be made against the management of the said school, which speaks volumes about the conduct and behaviour of the parents, who are not concerned to inject a sense of discipline in their child, but left no stone unturned to indulge in multifarious litigations without bothering about academic career of their ward,” the Bench observed.
