Kerala High Court
Elna Chinchu vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 9 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 15261 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
DHRUV SAI KIRAN (MINOR)
AGED 6 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER
SAI KIRAN.K.P., S/O. K.P. VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT SAI VIHAR,
ANNUR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR,PIN-670 307,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT,
THE TIMES OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.
B.G.HARINDRANATH
AMITH KRISHNAN H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
SHASTRI BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANKATAN,
INSTITUTIONAL AREA, S.J. MARG,
NEW DELHI,-110 016,
REP BY CHAIRMAN
3 THE PRINCIPAL,
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, EDAT,
PAYYANNUR, PIN-670 327
BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 2
ON 09.06.2022 ALONG WITH W.P(C) NO.15520 OF 2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 15520 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
ELNA CHINCHU,
AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR)
D/O. CHINCHU THOMAS, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER,
CHINCHU THOMAS, AGED 34, S/O. THOMAS AS HER LAWFUL
GUARDIAN FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR, RESIDING AT
NANNIKUNNEL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA E.P.O, KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, KERALA , PIN 686 583.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE.T.J
BABY THOMAS
MARIAMMA JOSEPH
ALICIA JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN 110 001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, IGH ROAD,
KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM- 682 020.
3 THE PRINCIPAL,
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA RUBBER BOARD, RUBBER BOARD P.O,
KOTTAYAM, KERALA 686 009.
BY ADV MANU S. ASG OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.06.2022 ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.15261 OF 2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 4
"CR"
JUDGMENT
Two children of tender age have approached this Court challenging
the action on the part of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan ('KVS' for short)
in declining admission to them based on revised guidelines issued after the
admission process had commenced.
2. As common issues are involved, both these writ petitions are
taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The factual position, as far as it is relevant, is detailed
hereunder:
W.P.(C) No.15520/2022 is filed by Elna Chinchu, a child aged 7 years,
through her father. It is stated that she applied for admission to Class II in
the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rubber Board, Kottayam, in terms of the admission
guidelines 2022-2023. Believing bona fide that she would secure admission,
she obtained a transfer certificate from her former school. Based on Ext.P1
application and Ext.P2 transfer certificate, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3,
allotting a unique ID, to the student. The child remitted the requisite
amount and purchased school uniforms, textbooks etc. as is evident from
Ext.P4 series bills. When the father of the child made an attempt to remit
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 5
the school fees, he was shocked to find that the fee portal link issued to him
had been blocked. When he approached the school authorities, he was
informed that the admission granted to the child had been cancelled under
the cover of a subsequent Government Order. In the said circumstances,
representations were submitted before the respondents and he fervently
requested that the admission already granted may not be cancelled and the
minor child be permitted to join and pursue her studies. The petitioner
states that her father is suffering from High-Grade Glioma Grade-III (Brain
Tumor) and is physically and mentally weak. It is also contended that
refusal to grant admission is illegal, irrational and arbitrary. It is in the
above factual backdrop that this writ petition is filed seeking directions to
the respondents to permit the petitioner to remit the school fees so that the
child can continue studies in the respondent school for the academic year
2022 - 2023 onwards.
4. W.P.(C) No.15261 of 2022 is filed by Master Dhruv Sai Kiran, a
child aged about 6 years through his father. It is contended in the writ
petition that the child applied for admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya at
Payyannur. At the time of applying for admission, the admission formalities
were regulated by Ext.P1 guidelines. The District Collector, Kannur, is the
Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya. As per
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 6
clause 1 (xvii) of Part-B of Ext.P1, the Chairman of the Vidyalaya
Management Committee is entitled to recommend a maximum of two
admissions in the concerned Kendriya Vidyalaya/ Shift under his
discretionary quota. These two admissions may be for admission in one
class, or all classes put together. The only caveat is that the children so
recommended should be eligible as per the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
(KVS) Admission Guidelines (up to 30th of June). The petitioner asserts that
he is otherwise eligible to get admitted to the I Standard of the School.
After considering all the relevant facts, the District Collector, Kannur, issued
Ext.P2 communication on 4.3.2022 to the Principal to include the name of
the petitioner in the Chairman's quota and to admit the child to the school.
It is contended that as per Ext.P3 admission schedule issued by the 2nd
respondent in the month of February 2022, the last date for online
registration is 13/4/2022 and the declaration of provisional select and
waitlist of registered candidates is on 29/4/2022. The petitioner contends
that by the time the online registration window was closed, all other schools
in the neighborhood had completed their admission formalities, and under
no circumstances could the petitioner aspire for admission to those schools.
The petitioner contends that as he had acted in terms of the guidelines
issued by the 2nd respondent and he had a legitimate expectation that
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 7
admission would be granted in the Kendriya Vidyalaya. While so, much after
the last date of closure of the online registration, the 2nd respondent came
up with an Office Memorandum on 25/4/2022, notifying certain
amendments to the special provisions under Part B of KVS Admission
Guidelines 2022-2023. As per the amended notification, the respondents
have discontinued some of the provisions like the discretionary quota given
to the MPs, Chairman of the Vidyalaya Management Committee etc., children
and dependent grandchildren of MPs, grandchildren of serving and retired
KVS employees, children of employees of the Ministry of Education (MoE),
etc. The petitioner contends that the new guidelines superseding the earlier
one for the very same academic year are arbitrary and one which affects the
legitimate expectations of students and parents. It is contended that the
petitioner did not even apply to any other schools as the admission to the
KV was a forgone conclusion in view of the recommendatory letter issued by
the Chairman. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before
this Court seeking to quash Ext.P5 to the extent that it purports to interfere
with the Chairman's right to recommend two students as per clause (xvii) of
Ext.P2 and for issuance of further direction to the 3rd respondent to admit
the petitioner to the class-I for the academic year 2022-2023 in the KV Edat,
Payyannur.
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 8
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, it is
stated that the KVS is an autonomous organization registered under the
Societies Registration Act XX1 of 1860 and fully financed by the Ministry of
Education, Government of India. The objective of forming KVS is to cater to
the educational needs of children of transferable Central Government
employees including defence personnel, by providing a common program of
education to develop Vidyalaya as a model school. It is contended that in
July 2020, the Government of India (GOI) launched the National Education
Policy (NEP) 2020 with salutary aims to produce engaged, productive, and
contributing citizens for building equitable, inclusive and plural society as
envisaged in the Constitution of India. Relying on Ext.R3(a), relevant pages
of the NEP 2020, the Government of India took a policy decision to bring out
amendments in the admission guidelines in the KVS to align with NEP 2020.
In supersession of all previous guidelines governing admission in Kendriya
Vidyalaya, the KVS has framed Ext.R3(b) guidelines for admission in KVs
during the academic year 2022-2023. Under the special provisions of these
guidelines, admissions over and above the class strength is discontinued in
certain categories like the Members of Parliament (MPs) quota, Chairman
Vidyalaya Management Committee (VMC) quota, children and grandchildren
of Members of Parliament, children and grandchildren of retired KVS
employees etc. The discretionary power of the Chairman of the VMC to
grant admissions in the discretionary quota over and above the class
strength was also taken off. It is stated that the discretionary quota
admission was becoming a serious concern of the KVS and these admissions
were stretching the class strength and adversely impacting the learning.
Due to the overcrowding in classrooms, children of transferable Central
Government employees were unable to get admissions in the KVs on their
transfer from one place to another. Further, the KVS has a reservation
policy for RTE/SC/ST/OBC and 3% horizontal reservation for the
differently-abled children. It was with the objective of streamlining the
admission process that Ext.R3(d) revised admission guidelines were brought
out. It is further stated that the right of the petitioners to apply for
admission in the KV has not been denied by the respondents. As the
petitioners are otherwise eligible to apply, they have applied through the
online admission portal and were given equal opportunity along with other
candidates. However, as per the priority list, the result of the petitioner in
WP(C) No. 15261 of 2022 in the online lottery is WL-166. It is further stated
that it is well within the authority of the KVS to change the criteria for
admission and the same has been done in consideration of larger public
interest and to ensure that deserving students secure the seats and hence
no interference is warranted for the reason that changes in policies are well
within the Executive realm.
6. I have heard Sri Amith Krishnan and Sri George T.J., the learned
counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Solicitor
General of India.
7. Sri. Amit Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15261/2022 would refer to the sequence of events
and it is submitted that the minor child had applied for admission in the KV
in tune with the guidelines for admission which was operative then. The said
guideline empowered the Chairman to recommend a maximum of two
admissions. According to the learned counsel, the Chairman after
evaluating the relevant aspects, proceeded to recommend the name of the
petitioner in his quota. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation that he
would secure admission and was waiting for his name to be included in the
select list. Abruptly and without any previous notice, the petitioner was
informed that the guidelines which were prevalent at the time of online
registration have been changed and the quota has been taken away. The
learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Maharashtra STC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51],
Umrao Singh v. Punjabi University [(2005) 13 SCC 365], K.Manjusree
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 11
v. State of A.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 512], Hemani Malhotra v. High Court
of Delhi [(2008) 7 SCC 11] and Major Saurabh Charan v. NCT of Delhi
[(2014) 6 SCC 798] and it was argued that there was no justification on the
part of the respondents to alter the basis of admission after the admission
process has started. The learned counsel would then rely on Navjyoti
Coop Group Housing Society v. Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 477] and
it is argued that the respondents being a public authority, were bound by
the admission guidelines regulating the admission and the petitioner
legitimately expected that he would secure admission based on the
recommendation given by the Chairman. It is further contended that the
child did not apply for admission in any other school and therefore, it would
be next to impossible for the child to secure admission in a school
comparable to the KV. The learned counsel would further contend that the
assertion of the respondents that the guidelines were revised in tune with
the National Education Policy 2020 cannot be accepted as the guidelines
takes note of the NEP Policy and its salutary aims and purposes. According
to the learned counsel, public orders cannot be construed in the light of the
subsequent explanations of the parties in the course of litigation and
reliance is placed on the judgment in Commissioner of Police v.
Gordhandas Bhanji [1952 SCR 135].
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 12
8. Sri. George T.J., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No. 15520/2022 would contend that consequent to the application
filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent allotted a unique ID signifying
that admission has been granted and thereafter, the petitioner had
purchased textbooks as well as uniforms. It was much later when an
attempt was made to remit the school fee, that the child realised that the
admission already granted had been cancelled. The learned counsel would
support the arguments advanced by Sri. Amith Krishnan and it was
contended that the prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law
and fairness in state action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.
9. Sri. S. Manu, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India
contended that it was in tune with the policy decision of the Government of
India that necessary amendments were carried out in the admission
guidelines in KVS to align it with NEP 2020. It is submitted that when the
discretionary quota admission was becoming a serious concern stretching
the class strength and as it was found that it was adversely impacting the
learning of the students that the KVS undertook a review of its admission
scheme which provides for granting admission to students through the
discretionary quota of the Chairman and the MPs. According to the learned
counsel, the petitioners cannot claim that they have a vested right to get
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 13
admission in the KV through the discretionary quota, which has been
dispensed with. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in Aiswariya S. v. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya
Vidyalaya, Kochi and Ors. [2015 (1) KHC 407] and it was argued that
Article 21A in no manner gives a right to the child or the parent to pick and
choose a particular school. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that it
is settled by now that the protection of any such legitimate expectation as
pleaded by the petitioners would not require the fulfillment of the
expectation wherein overriding public interest requires otherwise. Unless
there is material to show that the decision taken by the authority is
arbitrary, unreasonable, and not taken in public interest, would this Court be
justified in disturbing the same in the exercise of powers of judicial review.
The learned counsel relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Bannari Amman Sugar Mills Ltd. v CTO [2005) 1 SCC 625, Union of
India and Others v Hindustan Development Corporation and Others
[(1993) 3 SCC 499) to substantiate his contentions. It is further submitted
that the issuance of revised guidelines is consequent to the adoption of a
new policy to streamline the admission process and in such circumstances,
this Court may not unsettle the same.
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 14
10. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and
have perused the entire records.
11. Basic facts are not in dispute. In the month of February 2022,
the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan came out with guidelines for admission in
Kendriya Vidyalayas for the academic year 2022-2023 onwards. Part-B of the
guidelines contains Special Provision for admission. Clause 1 of the special
provision states that the categories of children detailed therein would be
admitted over and above the class strength except otherwise stated. About
21 categories of children are mentioned therein. Clause (xvii) provides that
the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee, is entitled to recommend
a maximum of two admissions. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15261/2022 was
granted a recommendatory letter by the Chairman. Insofar as the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.15520/2022 is concerned, she has been allotted a student ID
she has purchased textbooks as well as uniforms.
12. Exhibit P3 in W.P.(C) No.15261 of 2022 is the schedule of
admission for the Session 2022-2023. It is evident therefrom that the
advertisement for admission was on the last week of February 2022, the
online registration for class-1 was on 28.2.2022 and the last date for online
registration was on 13.4.2022 at 7 pm. The respondents were required to
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 15
publish the declaration of provisional select and waitlist of registered
candidates on or before 29.4.2022.
13. It is undisputed that the revised guidelines were issued by the
KVS consequent to Ext.P4 office memorandum on 25.4.2022 in W.P.(C) No.
15261/2022. In other words, it was after the close of online registration
that the revised guidelines were issued consequent to which the petitioners
were informed that their admissions cannot be processed and they cannot
be permitted to remit the fee.
14. Multifarious contentions have been advanced by the learned
ASG to justify the action of the respondents. The Assistant Solicitor General
may be right in contending that it was in implementation of the National
Education Policy 2020 that admissions over and above the class strength
were discontinued in certain categories like the MPs quota, the Chairman's
quota etc. Obviously, such an action was taken to prevent overcrowding in
classrooms and to provide admissions to children of transferable Central
Government employees. I have no doubt in my mind that the revised
guidelines are salutary in nature and would enable deserving students to
secure admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya. But it needs to be borne in
mind that the NEP was published in the year 2020 much before the issuance
of guidelines for admission to the KV. A perusal of the guidelines produced
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 16
as Exhibit P1 in W.P.(C) 15261 of 2022 would reveal that while issuing the
guidelines, the recommendations made in the NEP were also taken note of.
Ergo, while coming up with the revised guidelines, the respondents ought to
have reminded themselves that students like the petitioners had applied for
admission and they were waiting on the premise that they would secure
admission in the KV. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 15261 of 2022 has asserted in
the writ petition that as he was certain that he would secure admission in
the KV, he did not even apply for admission elsewhere, and by the time the
admission was refused as per the revised guidelines, the admission
formalities in other schools were over. This assertion is not controverted in
the counter affidavit.
15. In Major Saurabh Charan and Ors. v. Lieutenant
Governor, NCT of Delhi [(2014) 6 SCC 798], the challenge raised was
with regard to the retrospective change in admission scheme by a revised
notification resulting in deletion of inter-state transfer category students
during mid-session. The Apex Court in paragraph No. 18 of the judgment
held that the action of the respondents in taking away the admission by a
subsequent notification issued mid-session cannot be sustained. It was held
as follows:
18. Having considered the matter, we deem it appropriate to
relieve the appellants from the hardship of having the admission
being granted earlier under Notification dated 18th December, 2013
from being taken away by the subsequent Notification dated 27th
February, 2014, issued in the midstream. In our considered opinion,
it was not permissible for the Administration to alter the basis of
admission after the admission process had started and further having
participated in the selection process the criteria for selection could
not have been questioned by unsuccessful participants.
16. The respondents were also directed not to disturb the
admissions already granted. In the instant case, the respondents have
changed the admission criteria after closure of the online registration, thus
depriving the petitioners of their admission.
17. The learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that insofar
as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15261 of 2022 is concerned, he was only
granted a recommendatory letter by the Chairman and nothing more.
However, the fact remains that the Child had applied for admission well
within the time stipulated and there was no reason for him to suspect that
the respondents would revise the guidelines after the admission process had
commenced. I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners that the children may have had a
legitimate expectation that they would be granted admission in accordance
with the extant guidelines. The children would have legitimately expected
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 18
the respondents to act fairly. The expectation of the children was legitimate
and their interest has to be protected by all means. As held by the Apex
Court in Major Sourabh Charan (supra), it was not permissible for the
respondents to alter the basis of admission after the admission process had
started to the disadvantage of the petitioners. I have no doubt in my mind
that the decision taken by the respondents to change the admission
guidelines after the process had started, is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational
and not taken in public interest.
18. I am not impressed with the contention of the learned Assistant
Solicitor General that the KVS undertook a review of the admission scheme
in tune with the National Education Policy 2020. A careful perusal of the
original admission guidelines for the academic year 2022-2023 would reveal
that the mandate of NEP 2020 has been honored and several changes were
made. Furthermore, the explanations offered by the respondents in their
counter to justify their actions cannot be accepted as such. As held in
Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC
16], public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot
be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer
making the order of what he meant or what was in his mind or what he
intended to do.
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 19
19. The contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that
overriding public interest necessitates that the guidelines issued in terms of
the NEP be upheld,cannot be accepted. As held above, the children of
tender age would be denied admission if such a contention is accepted. The
State functionaries are expected to act fairly and reasonably. Fairness is a
rule to ensure that the vast power in the modern State is not abused but
properly exercised. The State ought to have exercised its power for proper
and not improper purposes. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that
statutory authority arrives at a just decision in promoting the interest or
affecting the rights of persons. To use the hallowed phrase "that justice
should not only be done but be seen to be done" is the essence of fairness
equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test
for proper and good administration and it has no set form or procedure (See
Management of M/s. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar and Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 48]. Regularity, Predictability, Certainty and
Fairness are necessary concomitants of state action. (See State of Bihar
and Others v Shyama Nandan Mishra (2022 Online SCC 554)) The
prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law and fairness in state
action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.
20. In Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Admn., (2011) 10 SCC 86
while dealing with fairness in administrative action by the State, the Apex
Court had observed as follows in paragraph 14 of the judgment.
14. Action by the State, whether administrative or executive,
has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and
rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action still
such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the
parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State
action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to
be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles
of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the
authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of
determinative nature. The standard of fairness is also dependent
upon certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons, subject
to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably
anticipate the order for the action that the State is likely to take in
a given situation. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt
elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the State would then
differ from person to person and from situation to situation, even if
the determinative factors of the situations in question were
identical. This uncertainty must be avoided.
21. While revising the admission guidelines, the respondents ought
to have been fair and they should have ensured that students like the
petitioners, who were legitimately expecting that they would secure
admission, were not thrown out. Children are not chattels or toys to be
thrown around at the mercy of the administrators. Every action taken by the
authorities having an adverse effect on a section of children ought to have
been taken cautiously and with all the sensitivity that it deserves. Education
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 21
is perhaps the most important function of the State and it is with proper
education that the child is awakened to cultural values. All that the
respondents had to do was to ensure that the interests of the petitioners are
also protected while bringing about sweeping changes. Under no
circumstances could the State have ignored Article 21A of the Constitution
or the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009. Though the NEP policy may be laudable, given the noble
intentions and the democratic principles it strives to achieve, however, while
adopting and implementing such policies, the State ought to have been
careful not to trample upon the rights of minor children while striving to
uphold the rights of others. By callously dealing with children, the
respondents were acting against public interest and not in favour as
contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. I declare as arbitrary
and unreasonable, the action on the part of the respondents in altering the
rules and guidelines governing admission after the procedure for admission
for the academic year has commenced. In that view of the matter, I hold
that the respondents are not justified in refusing to grant admission to the
petitioners in the respective schools.
In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to
succeed. There will be a direction to the respondents to admit the
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 22
petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15261/2022 to the I Standard for the academic
year 2022-23 in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Edat, Payyannur and the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.15520/2022 to the II Standard in the Kendriya Vidyalaya,
Rubber Board, Kottayam.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
PS/9/6/2022
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 23
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15261/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR
ADMISSIONS IN KENDRIYA VIDYALAYAS FOR
THE ACADEMIC SESSION 2022-23 ONWARDS.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-3-2022
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION SCHEDULE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED
25-4-2022.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
NATIONAL POLICY, 2020.
Exhibit R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR
ADMISSIONS IN KENDRIYA VIDYALAYAS WITH
EFFECT FROM THE ACADEMIC SESSION 2022-23.
Exhibit R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F
NO.11331/2022-23/KVS(HQ)/ACADEMIC DATED
25.04.2022 ISSUED BY KVS.
Exhibit R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES FOR
ADMISSION IN KENDRIYA VIDYALAYAS W.E.F.
ACADEMIC SESSION, 2022-23.
Exhibit R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE SEAT ALLOTMENT DETAILS
IN CLASS 1 OF THE KV PAYYANNUR PREPARED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR EASY
DISCERNMENT
W.P.(C) Nos.15520 & 15261 of 2022 24
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15520/2022
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FORM WITH REG. NO.
2122000082899 DATED 01.04.2022.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF TC OBTAINED FROM THE ERSTWHILE
SCHOOL DATED 12.04.2022.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE UNIQUE ID NO.
271793122005671 ALLOTED TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 12.04.2022.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BILLS FOR THE ITEMS
PURCHASED.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE
PETITIONER ON 29.04.2022 THROUGH E- MAIL.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATES FROM
BOTH THE HOSPITAL.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION UNDER
PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF NATIONAL
POLICY, 2020.
Exhibit R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIONS
IN KENDRIYA VIDYALAYAS WITH EFFECT FROM THE
ACADEMIC SESSION 2022-23.
Exhibit R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE F. NO. 11331/2022-23/KVS (HQ)
ACADEMIC DATED 25.04.2022 ISSUED BY KVS.
Exhibit R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED GUIDELINES FOR
ADMISSION IN KENDRIYA VIDYALAYAS W.E.F.
ACADEMIC SESSION 2022-23
