IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2449 of 2026

======================================================

Satyam, Son of Sheo Kumar Shrivastava, Resident of Mohalla - New

Jakkanpur, N. C. Ghosh Lane, Police Station Jakkanpur, District - Patna,

(Bihar).

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education

Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Chairman, Council For The Indian School Certificate Examination,

New Delhi (ICSE).

3.The Chief Executive cum Secretary, Council For The Indian School

Certificate Examination, New Delhi (ICSE).

4.The Deputy Secretary, Council For The Indian School Certificate

Examination, New Delhi (ICSE).

5.The Registrar, Council For The Indian School Certificate Examination, New

Delhi (ICSE).

6.The District Magistrate, Patna.

7.The Additional District Magistrate, Patna.

8.The Principal, Don Bosco Academy, Post - Digha Ghat Patna-800011.

9.The Class Teacher, Class 9th Section I, Don Bosco Academy, Post - Digha

Ghat Patna - 800011.

... ... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Adv.

Ms. Bulbul, Adv.

Mr. Shreyansh Harshit, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, GA-8

Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to GA-8

For the School : Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Adv.

Ms. Mimansha Singh, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 11-08-2026

Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assisted by Mr.

Ankit Kumar Singh, learned Advocate, and Mr. Kunal Tiwari,

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

2/30

learned Advocate for the Don Bosco Academy. The State is

represented by Mr. Neeraj Raj, learned Advocate.

2. The issue for adjudication lies in a narrow compass.

The minor son of the petitioner, who is studying in Class IX,

Section I of Don Bosco Academy, Patna (hereinafter referred to

as “the School”), and is registered with the ICSE Board for

Class IX under Roll No. 200367, was placed under suspension

and was not permitted to attend classes. The matter was brought

before this Court with the submission that the Final Term

Examination for the academic session 2025–2026 was

scheduled to commence from 16.02.2026 and if the petitioner’s

son was not permitted to appear in the said examination, he

would suffer serious prejudice, apart from the possibility of

losing an entire academic session. It was further brought to the

notice of this Court that the petitioner’s son had been informed

that he had been expelled from the School; however, no formal

order of expulsion had been issued, nor had any reason for such

expulsion been disclosed.

3. Considering the aforesaid submission, this Court,

vide order dated 12.02.2026, directed the School to permit the

petitioner’s son to participate in the Final Term Examination for

the academic session 2025–2026 and further directed the School

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

3/30

to file an affidavit before this Court, making it clear that such

permission would remain subject to the final outcome of the

present proceedings. In deference to the order of this Court, the

petitioner’s son was permitted to appear in the Final Term

Examination, and the School has thereafter filed a detailed

counter-affidavit.

4. In the counter-affidavit, a preliminary objection has

been raised with regard to the maintainability of the present writ

petition on the ground that the School is a private unaided

institution and no public element is involved in the action

complained of. It has been contended that neither the relief

sought by the writ petitioner nor the allegations made in the writ

petition have any nexus with any public duty.

5. This Court has also been apprised that the

petitioner’s son had been consistently displaying indiscipline

and non-compliance with the rules and regulations of the

School. It is alleged that he repeatedly bunked classes during

instructional hours without valid permission and failed to

comply with the warnings and guidance issued by the teachers

and the School authorities. According to the School, the

petitioner’s son was ultimately expelled on 17.10.2025.

6. Mr. Kunal Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing on

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

4/30

behalf of the School, has elaborately referred to the instances of

indiscipline and misconduct allegedly committed by the

petitioner’s son. It is submitted that, despite an assurance given

by the petitioner that he would ensure that his son would not

indulge in any unruly behaviour and would abide by the rules

and regulations of the School, the petitioner’s son once again

entered into a fight with another student within the School

campus during the recess period. Upon inquiry by the School

management, it was allegedly found that the petitioner’s son had

been instrumental in the said incident, thereby creating an

unpleasant atmosphere within the School campus. The petitioner

was called by the School management on different occasions

and was apprised of the conduct of his son, whereupon the

petitioner expressed his inability to effectively control his

conduct. According to the School, despite repeated opportunities

and warnings, the petitioner’s son did not mend his ways and,

instead, became increasingly aggressive. It is further alleged that

he issued a threat to the effect that the School management

would be responsible for any untoward incident. In these

circumstances, the School claims that it was left with no option

but to pass the order of expulsion.

7. Learned Advocate for the School, Mr. Tiwari,

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

5/30

while pressing the objection as to the maintainability of the writ

petition, has further contended that the petitioner’s son was

admitted to the School in the year 2021 and, at the time of

admission, the parents had, along with the admission form,

executed an agreement containing various terms and conditions

relating to the rules and regulations of the School, which were

required to be adhered to by both the student and his parents. It

is submitted that Clause 5 of the said agreement specifically

provides that the Principal may, in the interest of the School,

require a student to leave the institution if, in the opinion of the

Principal, the student has failed to accept and maintain the

discipline of the School and his continued presence is

considered detrimental to the interests of other students. The

class diary of the student also contains regulations to be

followed by the students and that Clause 66 thereof authorises

the Principal or an officer authorised by him to impose

punishment upon a student commensurate with the nature of the

offence. One of the punishments prescribed therein includes

expulsion from the institution. According to learned Advocate,

the relationship between the petitioner’s son and the School is

essentially contractual in nature and, therefore, no public

element is involved in the action complained of. In support of

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

6/30

his submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society &

Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors., [(2023) 4 SCC

498].

8. Mr. Kunal Tiwari, learned Advocate, has taken this

Court through various paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment and

submitted that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution can be exercised even against a body which is

neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State, provided

that the action complained of involves a public element.

However, where the impugned action has no nexus with any

public duty or public element, the writ jurisdiction cannot be

invoked merely because the institution in question may

otherwise be discharging a public function. It is further

submitted that, for entertaining a writ petition against a private

body, the existence of a public duty or public function in

relation to the action complained of must be established and the

body or person against whom relief is sought must be shown to

have acted in discharge of a duty having a public character or to

have exercised authority in furtherance of a public function.

According to learned Advocate, the School in question is a

private institution affiliated with the ICSE Board and is not

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

7/30

“State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The admission of the petitioner’s son was governed by the terms

of the agreement executed at the time of admission and,

therefore, the dispute essentially arises out of a contractual

relationship between the parties. It is, accordingly, contended

that, in the absence of any public element in the impugned

action, the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner, if

so advised, ought to avail himself of such other remedy as may

be available to him in law.

9. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that, upon

receipt of the order of expulsion, a copy whereof has been

marked as Annexure R/8/I to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner

challenged the same by filing Interlocutory Application No. 2 of

2026, inter alia, on the ground that the action of the School was

wholly arbitrary, illegal, cryptic and non-speaking and was in

violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as neither

any show-cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was

afforded to the petitioner or his son prior to passing the order of

expulsion dated 17.10.2025.

10. Referring to the impugned letter of expulsion,

learned Senior Advocate further submitted that an authority

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

8/30

must stand or fall on the reasons contained in the order passed

by it and cannot subsequently improve upon or supplement such

reasons by way of a counter-affidavit. In support of his

submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohindr Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief

Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405.

It is further submitted that the School cannot be permitted to

rely upon or introduce, by way of its counter-affidavit, materials

or allegations which were neither considered nor formed part of

the decision-making process culminating in the order of

expulsion. On this ground alone, it is contended, the impugned

action suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is violative of

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that

compliance with the principles of natural justice is an essential

facet of Article 14 of the Constitution and forms part of the

broader doctrine of fairness in administrative action. Since the

School admittedly failed to afford any opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner or his son before passing the order of expulsion,

the impugned order, according to learned Senior Advocate, is

wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. It is

further argued that the petitioner’s son is a minor and is

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

9/30

presently studying in Class X and has to appear in the first-term

examination. Any order of expulsion, or any continued restraint

upon his participation in regular classes, would cause grave,

irreversible and irreparable prejudice to his academic career and

future prospects. The expulsion would carry an enduring stigma

which may adversely affect the academic and future prospects

of the petitioner’s son.

12. Dealing with the preliminary objection regarding

the maintainability of the writ petition, learned Senior Advocate

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in St. Mary’s Education Society (supra). It is submitted

that the said judgment recognises that a writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution may be maintainable even

against a private entity, provided the action complained of

involves the discharge of a public function or public duty and

has the requisite public law element. Such public duty may arise

either from a statutory obligation or otherwise, provided that the

entity is shown to owe an obligation to the public involving an

element of public law.

13. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that,

for determining whether an entity is discharging a public

function, it is necessary to examine whether the function is

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

10/30

being performed for the collective benefit of the public or a

section thereof and whether the entity has the authority to

discharge such function. According to learned Senior Advocate,

the School is engaged in imparting education, which has

constitutional recognition under Article 21A of the Constitution

of India. It is, therefore, contended that the function discharged

by the School is intrinsically connected with a matter of public

importance.

14. It is further contended that, even in the case of

unaided minority educational institutions, the management

thereof is subject to the constitutional scheme embodied in

Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution. According to learned

Senior Advocate, there can be no serious dispute that the School

performs an important public function in imparting education

and, therefore, an order expelling a minor student in an arbitrary

manner and thereby depriving him of access to education,

without affording an opportunity of hearing or assigning legally

sustainable reasons, is amenable to judicial review under Article

226 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that the School

may not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of

the Constitution.

15. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

11/30

of a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in

Jayshree Vijay Mundaware v. Principal/Head Mistress of

Ashoka Universal School, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3929, as

well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in

Apoorva YK v. South Asian University, 2024 SCC OnLine Del

335.

16. This Court has heard the learned Senior

Advocate/Advocates appearing for the respective parties and

has also perused the materials available on record, which led to

the passing of the impugned order of expulsion.

17. Before adverting to the merits of the case, the

preliminary question that arises for consideration before this

Court is whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is maintainable against the decision of a

private unaided school to expel a student.

18. The controversy with regard to the maintainability

of a writ petition in cases concerning schools affiliated to the

CBSE/ICSE has been put to rest by a catena of decisions,

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an

educational institution discharges a public duty of imparting

education, which is a fundamental right of citizens.

Consequently, an affiliated school may, in an appropriate case,

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

12/30

be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

19. However, it is equally well settled that judicial

review of an action challenged before the Court by way of a writ

petition can be undertaken only where the action complained of

contains a public law element, and not merely for enforcing a

contract of personal service.

20. A plain reading of the constitutional scheme

makes it manifest that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article

226 is not determined merely by the identity or status of the

entity against whom the writ is sought. Rather, what is of

paramount consideration is the nature of the function performed

by such entity and whether the action impugned involves a

public law element.

21. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International

Airport Authority of India & Others, [(1979) 3 SCC 489], the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has postulated the 5-Point Test to

determine if a body is an instrumentality of the State viz

Financial assistance/funding from the State, deep and pervasive

State control, monopoly status conferred or protected by the

State, functions of public importance closely related to

governmental functions and transfer of a government

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

13/30

department to a corporation.

22. In Ajay Hasia Etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi &

Others, [(1981) 1 SCC 722], the Hon’ble Supreme Court further

crystallised that even the Society registered under the Societies

Registration Act, like an engineering college is a State if it

meets the instrumentality test.

23. Considering the various decisions on such issues, a

7-Judge Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian

Institute Of Chemical Biology & Ors. [(2002) 5 SCC 111]

revisited while defining the Article 12 of the Constitution and

clarifying that financial, functional and administrative

dominance by the State is key to being a State but opened doors

for broader remedies under Article 226 for public functions.

24. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the

landmark judgment in St. Mary's Education Society (supra),

has authoritatively considered the maintainability of a writ

petition under Article 226 against a private unaided minority

educational institution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

underscored that merely because a body performs a public duty

and is, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction, it does not

follow that every decision taken by such body becomes subject

to judicial review. Rather, the decision sought to be assailed

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

14/30

must itself contain a public law element. The remedy under

Article 226 is essentially designed to ensure that public duties

are duly discharged and to prevent abuse of power or neglect of

duty in the performance of such functions. Thus, even where a

private authority is found to be discharging a public function,

every action or decision of such authority would not

automatically become amenable to judicial review. The action

sought to be corrected or enforced must have a direct nexus with

the discharge of a public function. If a private body discharges a

public function and the denial of a right is inextricably

connected with the public duty imposed upon such body, the

public law remedy under Article 226 may be invoked.

25. The duty cast upon such body may arise either

from a statutory provision or otherwise, and the source from

which such duty emanates may not, by itself, be determinative.

Nevertheless, the essential requirement remains that the

impugned action must have a public law element. In the absence

of such an element, a writ petition under Article 226 would not

ordinarily lie merely to enforce a private right or to challenge an

action arising out of a purely private relationship.

26. The Court further observed that it is difficult to

draw a clear line of distinction between public functions and

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

15/30

private functions when both are being discharged by a purely

private authority. A body may be said to be performing a public

function when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the

public, or a section thereof, and is accepted by such public or

section of the public as being under an obligation to do so.

Bodies, therefore, exercise public functions when they intervene

in, or participate in, social or economic affairs in the public

interest.

27. Undoubtedly, the power of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised for the

purpose of enforcing purely private contracts entered into

between the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further

clarified that even assuming that an educational institution

discharges a public duty, the action complained of must have a

direct nexus with the discharge of such public duty. It is only

where the action impugned has a public law element that an

aggrieved person can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of

the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

28. Individual wrongs arising out of purely private

contractual relationships, having no public element as an

integral part thereof, cannot ordinarily be redressed by invoking

the writ jurisdiction under Article 226. In cases where the

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

16/30

Courts have intervened in exercise of their jurisdiction under

Article 226, either the service conditions were governed by

statutory provisions, or the employee enjoyed a status

recognised by statute, or the employer was found to fall within

the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution, or, alternatively, the

action complained of was found to contain a public law element.

29. The Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, in St. Mary's Education Society (supra), after

painstakingly considering the catena of decisions on the subject,

finally summarised the legal position in paragraph 75 of the

judgment, which reads as under:

“75. We may sum up our final

conclusions as under:

75.1. An application under Article 226 of

the Constitution is maintainable against a

person or a body discharging public

duties or public functions. The public

duty cast may be either statutory or

otherwise and where it is otherwise, the

body or the person must be shown to owe

that duty or obligation to the public

involving the public law element.

Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge

of public function, it must be established

that the body or the person was seeking to

achieve the same for the collective benefit

of the public or a section of it and the

authority to do so must be accepted by the

public.

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

17/30

75.2. Even if it be assumed that an

educational institution is imparting public

duty, the act complained of must have a

direct nexus with the discharge of public

duty. It is indisputably a public law action

which confers a right upon the aggrieved

to invoke the extraordinary writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 for a

prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or

breach of mutual contracts without

having any public element as its integral

part cannot be rectified through a writ

petition under Article 226. Wherever

Courts have intervened in their exercise

of jurisdiction under Article 226, either

the service conditions were regulated by

the statutory provisions or the employer

had the status of “State” within the

expansive definition under Article 12 or it

was found that the action complained of

has public law element.

75.3. It must be consequently held that

while a body may be discharging a public

function or performing a public duty and

thus its actions becoming amenable to

judicial review by a constitutional court,

its employees would not have the right to

invoke the powers of the High Court

conferred by Article 226 in respect of

matter relating to service where they are

not governed or controlled by the

statutory provisions. An educational

institution may perform myriad functions

touching various facets of public life and

in the societal sphere. While such of those

functions as would fall within the domain

of a “public function” or “public duty”

be undisputedly open to challenge and

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

18/30

scrutiny under Article 226 of the

Constitution, the actions or decisions

taken solely within the confines of an

ordinary contract of service, having no

statutory force or backing, cannot be

recognised as being amenable to

challenge under Article 226 of the

Constitution. In the absence of the service

conditions being controlled or governed

by statutory provisions, the matter would

remain in the realm of an ordinary

contract of service.

75.4. Even if it be perceived that

imparting education by private unaided

school is a public duty within the

expanded expression of the term, an

employee of a non-teaching staff engaged

by the school for the purpose of its

administration or internal management is

only an agency created by it. It is

immaterial whether “A” or “B” is

employed by school to discharge that

duty. In any case, the terms of

employment of contract between a school

and non-teaching staff cannot and should

not be construed to be an inseparable

part of the obligation to impart

education. This is particularly in respect

to the disciplinary proceedings that may

be initiated against a particular

employee. It is only where the removal of

an employee of non-teaching staff is

regulated by some statutory provisions,

its violation by the employer in

contravention of law may be interfered

with by the Court. But such interference

will be on the ground of breach of law

and not on the basis of interference in

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

19/30

discharge of public duty.

75.5. From the pleadings in the original

writ petition, it is apparent that no

element of any public law is agitated or

otherwise made out. In other words, the

action challenged has no public element

and writ of mandamus cannot be issued

as the action was essentially of a private

character.”

30. In Jai Shree Vijay Mundaware (supra), where the

admission of both children of the writ petitioner was terminated

by the management of the respondent, unaided minority school,

on account of the petitioner’s participation, along with other

parents, in an agitation concerning the fee structure enforced by

the management with the reasons that the children were

terminated due to parents indecent and illegal behaviour, the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court while taking into consideration of

Apex Court judgments of Gorkha Security Services v.

Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others [(2014) 9 SCC 105] and

Anand Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others [(2014) 9

SCC 2012], on the principles of natural justice mandating show

cause and opportunity of giving reasons and fair hearing has

held that the drastic action of expelling the students without

issuing a show-cause notice is impermissible. The Court also

held that there is no support material placed by the school for

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

20/30

such action in law and thus the entire action initiated and taken

by the school is unjust, impermissible and contrary to law apart

from being in clear breach of the principles of natural justice

and therefore void, illegal and impermissible. The Court further

opined that, in the interest of justice, appropriate directions

could be issued even against an unaided minority educational

institution. This was for the reason that such institutions, once

they admit children, undertake the responsibility of imparting

education and thereby discharge a public function involving an

element of legal and statutory obligation. Consequently, the

impugned orders whereby the admission of the petitioner’s son

and daughter had been terminated were held to be illegal and

unsustainable and were accordingly quashed and set aside.

31. Coming to the decision in Apoorva YK (supra),

this Court finds that the said decision, while reiterating the

principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held

that the proposition that a writ under Article 226 of the

Constitution can be issued only against a State or an authority

falling within the ambit of Article 12 has become archaic and

anachronistic. The settled position in law is that a writ can, in an

appropriate case, be issued even against a private individual or

body, provided such individual or body is discharging a public

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

21/30

function and the writ is sought for enforcement of such public

function.

32. Article 226 of the Constitution expressly

empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs, orders or

directions to any person or authority, within its territorial

jurisdiction, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and “for

any other purpose”. Imparting education is undoubtedly a

function having a public character.

33. This Court also takes note of the Full Bench

decision of the Allahabad High Court in Roychan Abraham v.

State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine ALL 3935, wherein while

answering the reference, the Full Bench held that private

institutions imparting education to students from the age of six

years onwards, including institutions providing higher

education, perform a public duty and discharge functions which

are primarily governmental in nature and, therefore, are

amenable to judicial review by the High Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

34. On a careful consideration of the aforesaid

decisions, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the

conclusion that even an unaided minority school, while

imparting education to children, discharges a public function

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

22/30

involving an element of public law. Consequently, actions of

such an institution relating to admission of students, fixation of

fees and, in an appropriate case, expulsion of students, may be

subjected to judicial review where the authority has failed to act

fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. Such action must

necessarily withstand the scrutiny of the principles of fairness

and reasonableness embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.

35. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by

the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-school

regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition stands

overruled.

36. Proceeding further to examine the merits of the

case, this Court takes note of the factual circumstances

emerging from the record. The materials placed before the Court

indicate that the son of the petitioner had, on several occasions,

been found to be indisciplined and in violation of the rules and

regulations of the school, as well as the directions issued by the

school authorities. It further appears that repeated warnings,

counselling and guidance were extended to the petitioner’s son;

however, according to the school, such measures did not yield

the desired improvement in his conduct.

37. This Court has carefully perused the endorsements

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

23/30

made in the school diary as well as the remarks recorded by the

teachers. The same indicate allegations of the petitioner’s son

bunking classes, engaging in altercations with other students,

and behaving in an indecent or inappropriate manner while

interacting with teachers. There is nothing on record, as such, to

suggest that the Principal of the school is wholly divested of the

authority to take disciplinary action against a student

commensurate with the nature and gravity of the misconduct.

Nor can it be said as an absolute proposition that the power of

expulsion can never be exercised by the school. However, such

power, even if available under the rules and regulations of the

institution, must necessarily be exercised in accordance with the

governing rules, the principles of natural justice, and the

requirement of proportionality.

38. In the present case, Clause 66 of the Rules and

Regulations of the school assumes significance, as the same

specifies the acts of misconduct which may invite disciplinary

action, including, in appropriate cases, expulsion from the

institution. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate

to reproduce the said provision hereinbelow.

“66. The Principal or those

authorized may punish a student in a manner

suited to the offence, by detention after class

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

24/30

hours or punishment or suspension or expulsion

from the institution without assigning any

reasons.

OFFENCES INCLUDE:

a) Disfiguring or damaging any

school property.

b) Smoking.

c) Any form of gambling.

d) Use of drugs or intoxicants.

e) Use of violence anywhere within or

outside the school campus.

f) Enticing or practicing casteism,

untouchability & communalism.

g) Any act of insubordination .

h) Carry of a Mobile Phone in the

school.

i) Any form of bulling: Direct-

Physical intimidation, verbal abuse, etc or

Indirect: spreading malicious rumours, etc or

Cyber-bullying: sending unpleasant SMS’s,

emails, other attachments, etc.

j) Taking any sum or making any

collection of money with in the school premises

or outside from any other student with or

without consent or forcibly for any purpose

whatsoever.”

39. Upon a plain reading of the aforesaid clause,

particularly the acts of misconduct enumerated therein which

may entail even the extreme penalty of expulsion, this Court

does not find that mere bunking of classes finds specific

mention therein as an offence warranting such extreme

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

25/30

consequence.

40. As regards the allegation of fighting amongst

students, this Court is conscious of the fact that altercations or

physical fights may, at times, arise out of momentary anger,

immaturity or trivial disputes amongst children. Every such

incident, therefore, cannot, by itself and without examining its

nature, gravity and surrounding circumstances, be treated as

warranting the extreme penalty of expulsion. The disciplinary

response must necessarily be proportionate to the nature and

seriousness of the misconduct.

41. The object of education is not confined merely to

imparting academic instruction. The administration of an

educational institution involves the organisation, direction and

coordination of human and material resources so as to create an

environment conducive to the intellectual, social, moral and

overall development of its students. The school, as an

institution, is expected to facilitate academic growth, inculcate

discipline, develop character, nurture responsible citizenship and

prepare students to face the challenges of life.

42. The ultimate objective of education is to bring the

individual and the community closer, to foster sound values and

a balanced philosophy of life, to develop the personality of the

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

26/30

student, to preserve worthy traditions and practices, and at the

same time to provide an environment conducive to learning,

creativity, research and experimentation.

43. Students are, in the ultimate analysis, valuable

human resources of the nation. Consequently, while discipline

within an educational institution is undoubtedly essential and

cannot be compromised, the approach adopted by the institution

in dealing with indiscipline or misconduct by a student must

also take into account the age, maturity and circumstances of the

student concerned.

44. In the considered opinion of this Court, where the

misconduct complained of is capable of correction through

counselling, warning, supervision or other lesser disciplinary

measures, the institution ought ordinarily to adopt a reformative

and corrective approach rather than resorting immediately to the

extreme penalty of expulsion. The disciplinary authority must

balance the need to maintain institutional discipline with the

equally important objective of reforming and educating the

student.

45. The power to discipline a student is not an end in

itself; it is a means to facilitate the student’s development. An

order of expulsion, being the severest form of disciplinary

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

27/30

action and having serious consequences for the academic and

personal future of a child, must therefore be founded upon clear

authority under the applicable rules, supported by cogent

material, preceded by a fair opportunity of hearing wherever

required, and proportionate to the misconduct alleged.

46. It is in this backdrop that the legality and

sustainability of the impugned order of expulsion are required to

be examined.

47. The impugned order of expulsion, marked as

Annexure-R/8/I to the counter affidavit, does not reflect any

consideration or application of mind to the materials relied upon

by the school, save and except the general allegations of

indiscipline and involvement in fighting. Such an order, in the

considered opinion of this Court, is cryptic, non-speaking and

suffers from apparent non-application of mind.

48. The impugned order further indicates that, prior to

taking such a drastic decision, the school authorities failed to

adhere to the principles of natural justice and fair play. No

adequate opportunity appears to have been afforded to the

petitioner’s son to explain the allegations levelled against him,

nor does the order disclose any consideration of his explanation,

if any, or the circumstances in which the alleged incidents had

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

28/30

occurred.

49. The authorities of an educational institution must

not lose sight of the fact that they are dealing with minor

students who are still in the formative stage of their lives. An

educational institution owes a corresponding duty not merely to

impart academic education but also to facilitate the development

of the personality, character and conduct of its students so that

they may grow into responsible and good citizens.

50. Minor skirmishes, instances of indiscipline and

other acts of misconduct committed by students, particularly

those who have not attained sufficient maturity, ought to be

considered in their proper perspective. While discipline is

undoubtedly an essential component of education, the response

of the institution to such conduct should ordinarily be guided by

a reformative and corrective approach, rather than by resorting

to the severest penalty of expulsion, unless the nature and

gravity of the misconduct clearly warrant such extreme action.

51. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,

this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s son

deserves an adequate opportunity to improve his conduct and to

demonstrate that he is capable of responding positively to the

guidance and discipline of the institution. The purpose of

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

29/30

disciplinary action in an educational institution ought to be

corrective and reformative, particularly in the case of a minor

student, and not merely punitive.

52. Moreover, as discussed hereinabove, the

impugned order suffers from serious legal and procedural

infirmities, including non-application of mind, absence of

adequate reasons, failure to adhere to the principles of natural

justice and lack of proportionality in the punishment imposed.

53. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court

finds merit in the present writ petition.

54. Accordingly, the impugned order of expulsion

dated 17.10.2025, as contained in Annexure-R/8/I to the counter

affidavit, is hereby quashed and set aside.

55. The respondent-school is directed to permit the

petitioner’s son to resume his classes and to participate in the

academic activities of the institution, including appearing in the

examinations for which he is otherwise eligible.

56. In the event that, solely on account of the

impugned order of expulsion, the petitioner’s son was prevented

from appearing in any term examination which is mandatorily

required to be cleared for appearing in the secondary

Patna High Court CWJC No. 2449 of 2026 dt.11-08-2026

30/30

examination, the respondent-school shall permit him to appear

in an appropriate supplementary or special examination, as may

be conducted by the school, along with or immediately

preceding the next term examination, so that he does not suffer

any academic prejudice on account of the impugned order.

57. It is made clear that the petitioner’s son shall abide

by the rules and regulations of the school and shall maintain

proper discipline and decorum within the institution.

58. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid

terms.

59. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

rohit/-

(Harish Kumar, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE NA

Uploading Date 12-08-2026

Transmission Date