IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-04-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N. MALA WP No. 14189 of 2025 and WMP No. 15942 of 2025 C.Balasubramanian, S/o.Chindambaram, (Guardian/ Paternal Uncle of minor ward C.N.Varun Sethupathy)

No. 34, Palmgrove Apartment, 9^th Cross Street, 1^st Floor, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. ... Petitioner Vs The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Campus, Chennai 600 036. ... Respondent Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to forthwith grant admission to the Petitioner's Ward, Master C.N. Varun Sethupathy, in Balavatika -I, Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Campus as per his selection in Lottery No.5 conducted under the RTE quota.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Palaniandavan For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaidhiyanathan

O R D E R

Writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant admission to the Petitioner's Ward, Master C.N. Varun Sethupathy, in Balavatika -I, Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Campus, as per his selection in Lottery No.5, conducted under the RTE quota.

2. The brief facts are that, the petitioner as the paternal uncle of the child, Master C.N.Varun Sethupathy, applied for admission to Balavatika -I, Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Campus, Chennai, on 29.03.2025. The petitioner's nephew was selected for admission, (Lottery No.5) in a lottery drawn for selection under the RTE quota. The respondent on perusal of the application found that in the Aadhar card produced by the petitioner, the initial of the petitioner differed with that of the ward. The respondent also found that OBC Certificate was not enclosed along with the application. The petitioner therefore submitted a letter on 29.03.2025, stating that it was only a clerical error and further sought for three weeks' time to produce the OBC certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by the respondent's office on 01.04.2025, that the wards admission had been rejected on the aforesaid two grounds. The petitioner thereafter immediately sent representation on 02.04.2025, objecting to the rejection of the application. The petitioner also clarified that he was the paternal uncle and the guardian of the boy and that as his brother did not have the means to educate his son, the petitioner had taken upon himself the responsibility of educating his nephew. The petitioner also submitted a further representation on 04.04.2025, along with the OBC certificate. Inspite of aforesaid clarification, the respondent rejected the admission and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. The respondent filed a counter, stating that the petitioner had failed to prove by documentary evidence that he was the legal guardian and paternal uncle of the ward. The respondent submitted that the petitioner had failed to produce OBC certificate of the ward on or before 24.03.2025, the last date of submission of application. According to the respondent's, the petitioner was trying to obtain a seat under the RTE Act, in violation of neighbourhood criteria, mandated under the RTE Act and also that, as per the prevailing norms only, the Aadhar card of the parents was taken as valid address for the purpose of verification. The respondent stated that on verification of the parent's address, it was evident that they were residents of Tenkasi and further there were no records to support the petitioner's claim that he was the legal or local guardian of the ward. The respondent therefore stated that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

4. From the counter affidavit of the respondent, it is clear that three objections were raised for denial of admission of the ward under the RTE quota. The first objection related to the guardianship of the petitioner, second objection related to neighbourhood criteria and the third objection related to the OBC certificate.

5. With regard to the first objection, (i.e.)