Karnataka High Court
Master Shamant P vs The Union Of India on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
WA No. 1305 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 1305 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MASTER SHAMANT P.,
S/O B. PRASHANT KUMAR,
MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS),
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
FATHER SRI B. PRASHANTH KUMAR,
S/O C.S. BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT No. 1/1, NEW No. 234,
2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU NORTH, PIN 560 096.
Digitally 2. MASTER SANTHOSH G.,
signed by
VALLI S/O GANGANNA N.,
MARIMUTHU MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS),
Location: High REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
Court of
Karnataka MOTHER SMT. THARA R. V.,
W/O GANGANNA N.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT No.62, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, MATHIKERE EXTENSION,
M.S.R.I.T. POST,
BENGALURU 560 054.
3. KUMARI HARSHIKA B.,
D/O GOLLAPALLI BALAJI,
MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS),
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
WA No. 1305 of 2024
MOTHER SMT. G. RADHA,
W/O GOLLAPALLY BALAJI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT No.2, OLD RAILWAY COLONY,
KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD,
DODDABOMMASANDRA,
VIDYARANAYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU 560 097.
4. KUMARI MANVITHA,
D/O JANARDHANA D.,
MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS),
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
MOTHER SMT. BRUNDA M.,
W/O JANARDHANA D.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT 517, 2ND BLOCK,
PEENYA ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD,
BENGALURU NORTH ,
PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES,
PIN 560 058.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SRIKANTH M. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI 110 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN,
No.18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
SHAHEED JEETSINGH MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE,
BENGALURU 560 012.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
WA No. 1305 of 2024
4. THE REGISTRAR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE,
BENGALURU 560 012.
5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE,
BENGALURU 560 012.
6. THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE,
BENGALURU - 560012.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
7. KUMARI SHOBHITA B.,
D/O BABU N.,
MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS),
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
MOTHER SMT. M. LATHA.,
W/O N. BABU,
C/O MUNISWAMY C.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT 2, 6TH A CROSS,
SUBEDAR PALYA,
BENGALURU 560 022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., DSGI FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.07.2024 PASSED IN WP No.12974/2024 (EDN-
RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
WA No. 1305 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. M.P. Srikanth for the appellants
and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi
Bhushan for respondent No.1.
2. The instant intra court appeal under Section 4 of the High
Court Act, 1961, aggrieved by the order in Writ Petition No.12974
of 2024 dated 08.07.2024.
3. The brief facts as available from the pleadings are that the
appellants are grandchildren of employees of Indian Institute of
Science, Bengaluru. The appellants filed an online application
seeking admission to respondent No.6-School for the academic
year 2024-2025. The appellants claimed preference under
"Grandparents Sponsoring Quota" in the application. Respondent
No.6 issued an endorsement informing that the "Grandparents
Quota of Sponsoring IHL" is unavailable for the academic year.
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
4. Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition holding that
the priority in admission cannot be construed to be a vested right.
Further held that priority based on previous academic year
guidelines is not permissible in view of guidelines 2024-25
governing admissions to the academic year under consideration.
5. Learned advocate Mr. M.P. Srikanth, appearing for the
appellants, submits that the guidelines for admission provide for
priorities in admission. Clause 3(B)6 provides priority in admission
to the children when not covered under any specific categories. It
is submitted that the grandchildren of serving/retired employees are
provided preference in the guidelines governing the earlier
academic years, and the case attracts the residuary clause.
5.1 Learned advocate further submits that the guidelines for the
academic year 2023-2024 provided preference in admission to the
grandchildren of serving/retired employees. There was no
residuary category in the guidelines 2023-2024. However, in the
guidelines 2024-2025, the priority to grandchildren of the
serving/retired employees though not expressly provided, as no
such restriction is imposed, the priority is to be considered as per
the residuary clause.
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi
Bhushan appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 by reiterating the
stand taken in the writ petition, submits that the priorities are
provided with an object to cater for the educational needs of
children of transferable Central Government employees and other
objectives. The priorities are based on the advice of the Board of
Governors, consisting of eminent educationists and administrators
from all over the country. The priorities provided are an expert
decision and a matter of policy. The priority provided is to be
extended on a case-to-case basis. The appellants cannot claim
the priority as a matter of vested right.
6.1 It is submitted that the request for priority on the
grandparent's quota cannot be extended when such priority is not
provided in the guidelines 2024-2025. A request for priority based
on the earlier guidelines without challenging the guidelines 2024-
2025 is not sustainable.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, the only
grievance of the appellants is to the rejection of priority under
grandparents quota as against such priority in guidelines 2023-
2024. The appellants filed an application seeking admission for the
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
academic year 2024-2025. Respondent No.6 has issued
guidelines to govern the admission process for the academic year
2024-2025. As can be noticed from the guidelines, the preference
to the grandchildren of the serving/retired employees is not
provided.
8. The guidelines 2023-2024 made available to the Court would
evidence preference expressly provided to the grandchildren of
serving/retired employees. When such a preference is specifically
not provided in the guidelines 2024-2025, which governs the
admission process for the academic year 2024-2025, the
admission of the appellants cannot be considered as per guidelines
2023-2024.
9. The contention of the appellants is that though preference for
grandchildren is not expressly provided in guidelines 2024-2025,
such preference was available in the previous academic years, and
the preference needs consideration under the residuary clause,
which is unsustainable. When preference was expressly provided
in the earlier year guidelines and such preference is conspicuously
absent in the guidelines 2024-2025, the reading of the preferences
in the passion as suggested by the appellants is not permissible,
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
that too in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent-
authorities that the quota for grandchildren is not intended nor
provided for.
10. In the absence of a challenge to guidelines 2024-2025, the
exclusion of preference for grandchildren can neither be faulted nor
interfered with by the Court. Further case for interference is also
not made in the light of decision to exclude the preference was
made based on expert advice and as a policy decision. Once it is
found that the endorsement issued impugned in the writ petition
conforms with the guidelines 2024-2025, the same needs no
interference.
11. Learned Single Judge on comparison of the list of priorities
as provided in guidelines 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 has rightly
held that the priority in admission cannot be construed to be a
vested right and priority provided in the previous academic year
cannot be enforced as a legal right for continuation of such quota.
12. In light of the change of priorities in the guidelines 2024-2025
and the sound and well-acceptable reasons assigned by the
NC: 2024:KHC:45056-DB
learned Single Judge, no error can be booked to interfere with the
order. Appeal dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main appeal, pending interlocutory
applications do not survive for consideration and are disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
