Follow Us
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, December 11
The petition filed by the father of a boy suspended from Vivek High School here was today adjourned to March next year on request of the petitioner’s counsel.
As the case up for resumed hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was pointed out that the petitioner had earlier sought directions for advancing the date of hearing.
Taking a note of the submission, Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa observed orally in the open court that good advocacy involved realising the pulse of the court. “It does not suit him, so he is filing an adjournment slip,” Justice Dhindsa added. The oral observations by Justice Dhindsa came on the petition by the child’s father, Sanjeev Garg. Justice Dhindsa, on the previous date of hearing, had verbally observed that the petitioner had been repeatedly submitting complaints after the filing of the petition. Justice Dhindsa had also verbally observed that accepting the student back would neither be in the interest of the child, nor the fellow students and the institution.
Justice Dhindsa had verbally told the petitioner’s counsel: “By filing the petition, you submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of this court. But after the filing of the petition, you are filing repeated complaints”.
The assertion came just about a fortnight after Justice Dhindsa directed the counsel to ensure the filing of petitioner’s affidavit “bringing forth the details of complaints, if any, that he has filed or filed on his behalf to the authorities concerned against the respondent school after the filing of the instant petition”.
His counsel, on a previous date of hearing, had sought a short adjournment after submitting that November 28 was the last date for student registration. “Once he is not registered, he will not be able to take the examination,” his counsel had added
The case has its genesis in a complaint by Garg alleging that his son studying in Class VI was subjected to corporal punishment and had to suffer mental harassment and torture. A local court, in July, had accepted the closure report submitted by the UT police in a case against the school authorities.
The closure report was filed in May. An application in this regard pointed out that the medical examination of the child was conducted four days after the alleged incident and, hence, was not justified. Also, other students, whose statements were recorded during the probe, did not support the allegations.