Karnataka High Court
Master Shamant P vs The Union Of India on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB
RP No. 609 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
REVIEW PETITION No. 609 OF 2024
IN
WRIT APPEAL No.1305 OF 2024
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,
Digitally BENGALURU NORTH, PIN 560 096.
signed by
VALLI
MARIMUTHU 2. MASTER SANTHOSH G.,
Location: High S/O GANGANNA N.,
Court of
Karnataka MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS),
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
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),
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB
RP No. 609 of 2024
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN,
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.
...PETITIONERS
(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: 2025:KHC:8651-DB
RP No. 609 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 TO R6)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2024
PASSED ON WA No.1305/2024 (EDN RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-A,
RESTORE THE WRIT APPEAL WA No.1305/2024 (EDN -RES) TO ITS
FILE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB
RP No. 609 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. M.P. Srikanth for the petitioners
and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi
Bhushan for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.1305 of 2024 have
preferred this review petition seeking review of the order dated
05.11.2024.
3. The petitioners are the grandchildren of employees of the
Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. They submitted online
applications seeking admission to respondent No.6-School for the
academic year 2024-2025, claiming preference under the
'Grandparents Sponsoring Quota.' However, their applications
were rejected. The rejection of applications was challenged in Writ
Petition No.12974 of 2024. The learned Single Judge, by order
dated 08.07.2024, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Division
NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB
Bench in Writ Appeal No.1305 of 2024, which was also dismissed,
thereby upholding the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. The present review petition is preferred raising various
grounds.
5. Learned advocate Mr. M.P. Srikanth, appearing for the review
petitioners, submits that the admission guidelines applicable for the
academic year 2023-2024 provided preference to the grandchildren
of retired employees. However, the guidelines for the academic
year 2024-2025 did not extend such preference. Nevertheless,
learned advocate contends that under both sets of guidelines, the
residuary clause/preference remains intact. Accordingly, the
petitioners are entitled to be considered for admission under the
residuary category. It is further submitted that this aspect has not
been considered in the impugned judgment.
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
Mr. H.Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6,
submits that no specific quota is reserved for the grandchildren of
retired employees. He contends that the admission guidelines for
the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 merely provided a
preference in admission, rather than a reserved quota. It is further
NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB
submitted that the benefit of the residuary clause would arise only if
seats remain unfilled after admitting candidates under the
prescribed preference categories. However, as there are no
available seats for admission, consideration under the residuary
category do not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioners
cannot claim any right to admission.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for
the parties, it is evident that the grounds raised in support of the
review petition are a mere reiteration of the grounds urged in the
writ appeal. The said grounds have already been considered and
answered in the judgment dated 05.11.2024.
8. Be that as it may, it is the specific submission of the learned
DSGI that candidates can claim admission under the residuary
preference only when there are no children eligible for admission
under the earlier preference categories. A perusal of the admission
guidelines issued by respondent No.6 for the academic years
2023-2024 and 2024-2025 makes it evident that no specific
preference has been provided to the grandchildren of retired
employees for the academic year 2024-2025. Furthermore, the
application form issued for the academic year 2024-2025 explicitly
NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB
states that such preference is not available for the academic year
in question.
9. Upon consideration of the submissions and the findings
recorded hereinabove, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate
any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, no
case is made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction. All the
grounds urged in the review petition are only reiteration of grounds
in writ appeal. In the review petition, the petitioners are not
permitted to reargue the case. The submissions advanced are
already addressed in the appeal.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the review petition, the interlocutory
applications seeking condonation of delay and production of
additional documents, would not survive for their consideration.
Accordingly, the applications are rejected.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
