Justice Shamim gave the direction on a fresh suit filed by the affected student challenging his expulsion. The next date of hearing has been fixed for October 26.

According to petitioner, he and five other students were accused of harassing a co-male student. While the other five, all foreigners were let off. But the petitioner, being an Indian was expelled.

Earlier on Septemebr 14, Justice Anil Dev Singh of the Delhi HC while disposing of a petition by the affected student had observed that on going by the merits of the case, principles of natural justice seemed to have been violated and there was no compliance by the school authorities of their own rules and policies.

He had further observed that it wasdesirable for the school to permit the student to complete his final year of study at the school as there was no other school in Delhi that could offer a similar international programme, and therefore his expulsion would ruin his whole educational career.

Justice Singh had also held that the school is not diplomatically immune and is amenable to the jurisdiction of Indian Courts and Legal System. The expulsion decision of the AES was liable to be quashed, but because the writ petition against a private, non-aided and non-affiliated school filed by the expelled student was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he was not quashing the expulsion.

However, the expelled student may avail of an appropriate alternative legal remedy for the redressal of his grievances other than by a writ petition, Justice Singh observed. Consequently, the affected student filed a fresh suit in the Delhi High Court for quashing the expulsion order and seeking damages from the school.

Counsel for theplaintiff, senior advocate KK Venugopal, submitted before the judge that the decision to expel the student was taken by the school authorities without application of mind.

The rules of the school pertaining to expulsion clearly specified that the director of the school has to give a detailed written recomendation to the board of governors and the said recomendation must be shared with the student and his parents. Further, the student and his parents are entitled to a personal hearing before the board of governors. But none of these stipulations were complied with, Venugopal submitted.

Therefore, it was completely arbitrary decision to expel the plaintiff without giving him an opportunity to defend himself and inform him of the charges, it was further submitted.