IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAVI SHANKAR JHA, SANJAY DWIVEDI, JJ.
Kendriya Vidyalaya - Appellant
Versus
Ayan Abdullah Usmani and others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1716 of 2018
Decided On : 01-02-2019
Madhya Pradesh Unchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam - Admission Criteria - 2(1) - 4, 14 - The court discussed the eligibility age for admission in Class-III as per the guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya and the provision for relaxation by one day. The court highlighted the uniformity and non-discrimination objective of the guidelines and emphasized that the age criteria should not be relaxed by the court, as it would defeat the purpose of the uniform admission guidelines. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's stance on granting relief based on interim arrangements and the principle of not permitting disobedience of laws by court fiat.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents sought admission in Class-III at the appellant school despite not meeting the eligibility age criteria, and the court had issued interim orders allowing them to attend classes. The single judge allowed the petition, directing the appellant to relax the eligibility criteria and permit the respondents to study in Class-III.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents did not fulfill the eligibility age criteria for Class-III admission and had obtained admission in Class-II in accordance with the guidelines. The court emphasized that the interim arrangement did not confer any right to claim admission in Class-III and set aside the impugned order, affirming the admission in Class-II for the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should relax the eligibility age criteria for Class-III admission based on the respondents' interim attendance and performance, despite their non-compliance with the guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the age criteria should not be relaxed by the court, as it would defeat the purpose of uniform admission guidelines and perpetuate discrimination. The court also emphasized that the interim arrangement did not confer any right to claim admission in Class-III.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondents were permitted to appear in the final examination of Class-II and not Class-III.
Ravi Shankar Jha, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Unchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the learned single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 9785/2018 whereby the petition filed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 seeking admission in Class III has been allowed.
2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the respondent No.1 & 2 after passing Class-II from respondent No.4 Jyoti Senior Secondary School, Rewa, obtained a transfer certificate as they were desirous of obtaining admission and pursing further study in the appellant school namely; Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Rewa. Admittedly and undisputedly as per Clause (4) of the guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, which deals with the eligible age for admission, the minimum age for obtaining admission in Class-III has been prescribed as seven years as on 31st March of the year in which the admission is sought and as the date of birth of both two respondents who are twins is 03.04.2011, they were admittedly and undisputedly short by three days, out of which one day is relaxable, for obtaining admission in Class-III.
3. As the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in this appeal did not fulfill the eligibility age criteria prescribed in the guidelines, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through their natural guardian and mother, voluntarily and on their own, applied for and obtained admission in the Class-II in the appellant school on 06.04.2018. The fact that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 applied for and obtained admission in Class-II is evident from the letter of request dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure A/3) and is also clearly established from a perusal of the record of the appellant school which has been placed before us during hearing. It is also an undisputed fact that subsequent to obtaining admission in Class-II, the natural guardian of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed an application before the authorities of the appellant for granting admission to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in Class-III requesting the Principal of the appellant school to exercise his extraordinary power to relax the age criteria.
4. As the Principal did not possess any such powers, the criteria was not relaxed. The respondents thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No.9785/2018, in which, an interim order was passed by this Court on 07.05.2018 permitting the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to attend the classes (without specifying the class) with a rider that merely attending the classes would not create any equity in favour of the petitioners and would be subject to the final outcome of the petition. This order was subsequently modified on 20.08.2018 by permitting the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to attend Class-III.
5. The petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has been allowed by the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the respondents were only two days short of the age criteria and that they had been attending the class-III pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, wherein, they had demonstrated their merit and had also passed the half yearly examination with good marks and, therefore, it would be unjust, unreasonable and harsh and would amount to waste of one full academic year, if they would be asked to repeat Class-II.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the admission was obtained by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by applying for admission in Class-II as per the norms and criteria laid down by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan, New Delhi which were known to all including the respondents and no relaxation in these guidelines is permissible, except to the extend mentione
A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Etc. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another
Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. Vs. Subhash Rahangdale & Ors.
Dental Council of India Vs. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva, Mandal, Hingoli & Ors.
Principal, King George’s Medical College, Lucknow Vs. Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal and another
Regional Officer, CBSE Vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Other
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.