Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs I.Rosario Arockiaraj ... 1St on 17 August, 2022
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.13273, 13110 and 13091 of 2022
1. The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
No.18, Industrial Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi 110 016.
2. The Chairman, VMC,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Anna Nagar,
GPRA Campus, Thirumangalam,
Chennai 600 040.
3. The Principal,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Anna Nagar,
GPRA Campus, Thirumangalam,
Chennai 600 040. ... Appellants
vs
1. I.Rosario Arockiaraj ... 1st respondent in
WA.1780/2022
1. A.Muniyasamy ... 1st respondent in
WA.1828/2022
1. J.Vediappan ... 1st respondent in
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
WA.1786/2022
2. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Education,
New Delhi 110 016. ... Respondents in all WAs.
Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against
the order dated 12.05.2022 in WP Nos.12051, 12050 and 12048 of
2022 on the file of this Court.
For the Appellants : Mr.M.Vaidhiyanathan
For the Respondents : Mr.B.Mohan for R-1
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
These three writ appeals have been filed to assail the common
judgment dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking direction
for admission of their wards in respective classes, in Kendriya
Vidyalaya, Anna Nagar, Chennai.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
2. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners for the
reason that after the recommendation made by the Chairman for
giving admission to the petitioners' wards, when they reported to
the school, the admission was not given despite the fact that they
were called upon by the school to report for admission along with
the required documents and the transfer certificate. The reporting
date was 22.04.2022, however, in the absence of the transfer
certificate or availability of the necessary documents, the petitioners
could not get admission for their wards on or before 22.04.2022. In
the meanwhile, the writ appellants changed the policy by bringing a
new policy vide its Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022, by
4which, the discretionary quota given to the Chairman was
withdrawn apart from the quota given to the Member of Parliament.
In view of the Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022, the admission
to the petitioners' wards was denied.
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions finding
that when the petitioners' wards were called to report for admission
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
on or before 22.04.2022, along with original documents, the denial
for admission could not have been made in pursuance of a
subsequent Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022.
4. It was submitted that if the petitioners would have
produced all the necessary documents on or before 22.04.2022, the
date given by the writ appellants, their wards had been given
admission in the school, because the change of policy decision was
by the Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022. In the light of the
aforesaid, the prayer is made to uphold the judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
discretionary quota given to the MP and the Chairman in regard to
the admission was withdrawn in the year 2021 itself and as a
consequence of which the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit
of discretionary quota and therefore, the challenge to the order of
the learned Single Judge has been made because if the order is
complied, there would be excess admission to the seats kept for the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
said classes. In view of the above, the direction of the learned
Single Judge to give admission to the petitioners' wards needs to be
interfered.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and
perused the records.
7. It is a case where the petitioners applied for admission of
their wards in the school run by the appellants. An assurance was
given by the school authorities for the admission of the petitioners'
wards and accordingly, a letter was issued to report to the school
along with the required documents. The petitioners were not in
possession of the transfer certificates of their wards at that time
and therefore, they took time to obtain and produce the documents
required for admission. When the petitioners came with the
required documents, the admission was denied in the light of the
subsequent policy decision vide Office Memorandum dated
25.04.2022. When the appellants issued the letter for grant of
admission to the petitioners' wards, they were estopped from
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
denying admission to them. It is more so when pursuant to
admission letter given by the Principal of the school, the petitioners
hurriedly obtained the transfer certificate and produced it before the
school authority concerned. After obtaining the transfer certificate,
the petitioners cannot go back to the previous school and at the
same time, if the admission is denied by the appellants, then this
year would get wasted on account of the arbitrary decision taken by
the appellants affecting the career of the students.
8. The learned counsel for the writ appellants has given
reference to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of
Kerala in W.A.Nos.760 and 771 of 2022 dated 03.08.2022. The
learned counsel has made a reference of para 31 of the said
judgment to submit that the discretionary quota was admittedly
used over and above the class strength and thereby, it would have
adversely impacted the learning process on account of overcrowding
of the classrooms. It would otherwise affect those employees who
are transferred from one place to another and being the Central
Government employees, they need to be facilitated for grant of
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
admission to their wards. On the aforesaid reason, the Kerala High
Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. However,
what we find further in para 32 of the said judgment is that the
petitioners' wards therein had taken the admission in the other
school as well and therefore, their career was not affected on
account of denial of admission by the KV school. We find that the
plea of overcrowding of the classes has been taken by the
appellants without realising that they themselves had given
admission to the petitioners' wards and if it would result in
overcrowding, then there was no reason for the Principal to issue a
letter inviting the petitioners to deposit the fee and documents for
admission. In fact, the recommendation of the Chairman was
accepted and in turn, a letter was sent to the petitioners to produce
the relevant documents for admission. On account of that, the
petitioners obtained transfer certificate and now, if admission is
denied, it would adversely affect the career of their wards. In view
of the above, we are not convinced about the application of the
judgment of the Kerala High Court to the case on hand.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
9. It is, however, made clear that the judgment under
challenge should be taken to be an exception and not to be quoted
as a precedent. It was given under peculiar circumstances and
otherwise, now there is a change in the policy decision. The new
policy has come, thus, the admission to the students would be
given now as per the new policy and otherwise, the appellants have
withdrawn the policy of discretionary quota to the Chairman and
also the Member of Parliament and thereby, the judgment of the
learned Single Judge would be applicable in personam and not in
rem because now the admission would be governed by the new
policy dated 25.04.2022. Thus, the admission in the KV schools
would be governed by the new policy and for that, there would be
no discretionary quota to the Chairman or the Member of
Parliament.
10. We, however, do not find any error in the judgment under
challenge, but a clarity is made that it would be applicable in
personam and therefore, it would not be taken as a precedent for
any purpose. The judgment of the Kerala High Court cannot be
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
applied for the reason that the two petitioners therein had taken
admission in other schools and therefore, the students' career was
not affected, while, in the instant case, the petitioners' wards have
obtained the transfer certificate from the earlier school, thus, these
writ appeals are disposed of with the observations made above.
However, the writ appellants would give admission to the students
at the earliest, preferably within one week, so that their studies
may not be affected further. No costs. Consequently, connected
C.M.Ps. are closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
17.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
sra
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and
N.Mala, J.
(sra)
W.A.Nos.1780, 1828 and 1786 of 2022
17.08.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
