The court ruled that educational institutions must accept updated residency documentation at the time of admission, regardless of prior discrepancies.

JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias.C.P., J This writ appeal is preferred by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and its officials, including the principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam, challenging the judgment dated 2.6.2023 in WP(C)No.15955 of 2023, that directed the appellants to admit the minor petitioner in the first standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kadavanthara,Ernakulam

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

The petitioner had submitted an application for Std.1 in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam, as seen from Ext.P1. The address of the parents of the petitioner, hailing from Kasargode District, and the petitioner's Birth Certificate showed a permanent address in Kasargode. However, it is submitted that the father of the petitioner is doing business at Convent Junction in Ernakulam District, and his family is living in a flat taken on rent at Kaloor as per Ext.P3 rent agreement. At the time of submitting Ext.P1 application for admission, the petitioner's Adhar card had the residential address at Kasargode, and subsequently, the principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya informed that the petitioner might not get admission, as per the relevant norms since he is not residing within a distance of 10 Kms from the school. Accordingly, the petitioner's Adhar card was updated by incorporating his present residential address at Kaloor, Ernakulam, as is seen from Ext.P4. The appellants also provisionally selected the petitioner for admission, and he was included in the provisionally selected list of candidates published by the 4th respondent in the school's notice board as seen from Ext.P5. Notwithstanding the above, the 4th respondent, on the ground that the address shown at the time of registration and the first certificate produced later varied, denied admission. The appellants filed a statement before the learned single Judge contending that the address submitted by the parent while submitting the application form was the Kasargode address. But, at the same time, he had shown the distance to the school from his residence as less than 5 kms. When this discrepancy was noticed, an E-mail was sent on 12.4.2023, Ext.R2(a), to correct the mistakes, if any. The appellants submit that there was no response from the parent side to cancel the application. Thus, the appellants contended that the mismatch in the residential address, as shown above, has led to the denial of admission of the candidate. However, it is admitted in the statement that the parent had submitted the changed address to the school at a later date when they called for verification of documents on getting selected provisionally for admission.

3. Learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found that the objections raised on behalf of the appellants were technicalities and that it was an admitted fact that the Adhar card of the petitioner was already updated and the application also indicated the documents were to be produced when the admission is being offered which included proof of date of Birth of the child, a photograph of the child and proof of residence. Learned single Judge found that admittedly the writ petitioner had the proof of address at the time admission was to be made, and therefore the denial of admission was illegal and accordingly directed the appellants to accommodate by giving him an additional seat in the school, particularly, in the light of Ext.P5 where the child was already offered a seat provisionally. It is the said judgment that is impugned before us.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the contentions taken in the statement before the learned single Judge. They submitted that the only reason for denying admission was that the parent did not show the Ernakulam address in the registration form and the Adhar card was updated, and proof of the local address was given only later at the time of offering admission. It is pertinent to note that going by the instructions stipulated by the appellants, it