The main legal point established in the judgment is that the status of a Public Officer and the special status of Public Prosecutors under the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes influenced the court's decision on the qualification of the petitioner's father as a Central Govt. employee for admission purposes.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J - Against the refusal of the opposite parties to admit the petitioner in Class-I in Kendriya Vidyalaya-2, Madhupatna, Cuttack during the academic session 2015-16, the petitioner has approached this Court through this Writ petition.

2. The short facts of the case, in hand, are that pursuant to notification issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan under the Ministry of HRD, Department of Education, New Delhi dated 16.01.2015 schedule for admission into Class-I in Kendriya Vidyalaya for the academic session 2015-16 has been intimated to the Principal, KVS/all the Regional Offices with request to circulate the same amongst the KVS under their jurisdiction. After such notification, the petitioner applied for his admission into Class-I in Kendriya Vidyalaya-2, Madhupatna, Cuttack. On consideration of his application, the Selection Committee of Kendriya Vidyalaya prepared a list of selected candidates in which the petitioner?s name found place at Sl. No. 8 of the waiting list in Annexure-2. Subsequently, the provisional selection list was prepared wherein his name was found place at Sl. No. 7. Consequently, the petitioner?s father was called upon by the School authority on 02.05.2015 to remain present on 05.05.2015 between 9 AM and 11 AM along with all original documents accompanied by the child and his mother. On the date fixed, the petitioner?s father appeared before the school authority along with required documents, but opposite party No. 4 informed that his son cannot be admitted into his school. The petitioner?s father being an Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel appointed by Central Govt. for Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, the petitioner could not have been denied such admission. Hence, this Writ petition.

3. Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner?s father being a practicing advocate and at present working as an Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack is placed in the priority category-1 as per the admission guidelines of the opposite parties. Even though the petitioner was selected but subsequently, the said selection was rejected on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the document that the father of the petitioner is a regular Central Government employee under Ministry of Law and Justice Department, Government of India as per the service certificate filed along with the application form. Therefore, his case cannot be considered under the priority category-1 for admission into the Kendriya Vidyalaya-2, Cuttack. He submitted that the petitioner?s father was discharging the public duty being a Public Officer as defined under Section 2(17)(h) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He was holding an office of profit and as such as per the provisions contained under Section 24 of Cr.P.C., 1973, the petitioner?s father being a Public Prosecutor, having a special status and getting statutory appointment, he can be considered under category-1 of the guidelines issued by the Central Government Authority and without considering the same, denial of admission of the petitioner on the plea that the petitioner?s father is not a regular Central Govt. Employee, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1991 SC 537 : (1990) 4 JT 211 : (1991) 1 SCC 212 : (1990) 1 SCR 625 Supp : (1991) 1 UJ 645, in Mahadeo Vs. Shantibhai and Others, (1969) 2 SCR 422 .

4. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts and non-disclosure of fact is more serious and further by adhering deliberate to falsehood by filing a false affidavit. As such any party not approaching the Court i