High Court · 2025 on 11 Apr 2025

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- "I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 issued by Opposite Party No.4 and impugned order dated 24.09.2024, passed by opposite party No.3, as contained in Annexure No.2 and 3. II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the opposite parties to give admission in Class IV in P.M. Shree Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, forthwith."

3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner had taken admission in Class-III-B in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli on 27.05.2023.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of taking admission in Class-III, the family of the petitioner was residing in District Raebareli as a tenant on a very meager salary. Later, the father of the petitioner in order to look for greener pasture shifted to Lucknow on getting a job as a Supervisor. The petitioner obtained his transfer certificate from Kendriya 2 Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli on 30.04.2024.

The petitioner thereafter applied for admission in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, however, the respondent No.5 did not find favour with the request for admission of the petitioner which came to be rejected. The petitioner made several representations not only to the respondent No.5, but even to the higher authorities on which a report was called for. In pursuance thereof, the respondent No.5 held an inquiry and thereafter submitted its report with incriminating averments against the petitioner and his family and thereafter by means of the order dated

24.09.2024 rejected the representation.

6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that two orders dated 24.05.2024 and

24.09.2024 were challenged by the petitioner. Further, a direction was sought that the petitioner be granted admission in Class-IV in P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was duly admitted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, Raebareli in Class-III and he successfully passed Class-III with regular attendance with 64% marks with Grade-B2 in first term and 67% marks with Grade-B2 in last term with overall 65% with Grade-B2 and with good conduct the petitioner was promoted to Class-IV.

8. It is only on account of the fact that the father of the petitioner, who was earlier residing in District Raebareli and was looking for better job options, which he found in Lucknow and had shifted there, hence, he attempted to get the petitioner transferred and sought transfer certificate from Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli and applied for admission in Class-IV in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, 3 Lucknow.

9. It is further urged that the petitioner was clearly covered by the transfer guidelines and there were sufficient vacancies but only to harass the petitioner and to satisfy the administration ego, the petitioner was not granted the admission.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner had raised his grievance before the higher authorities. Thereafter, an inquiry was got done and at that stage, the respondent No.5 in order to submit its report held an inquiry which is generally not done and by taking recourse to certain material which were not put to the petitioner or his family, yet conclusions were drawn and by means of the order dated 24.09.2024, the request for admission made by the petitioner was rejected which is completely arbitrary coupled with the fact that similarly situated students were granted admission which makes the decision taken by the respondents as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and as such the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

11. Ms. Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that the case of the petitioner for transfer could not be considered as the petitioner falls under Category-V as per the admission guidelines. The current average class strength already exceeded 38 which is above the prescribed limit of 32. Under such circumstances, the case of the petitioner which falls in Kendriya Vidyalaya Transfer cases could not be considered.

12. It is also submitted that even otherwise the petitioner does not have a right to seek transfer from one school to another especially when the petitioner and his family had resorted to unfair route to procure admission 4 in the first place.

13. It is further urged that an inquiry was done which revealed that at the first instance the father of the petitioner had not disclosed the true and correct facts while seeking admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli rather upon probe, it revealed that the documents which were filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition as Annexures No.4, 5 and 14 are not genuine documents.

14. It was argued that the maternal-uncle of the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar Shukla is a Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, Raebareli. The parents of the petitioner were not resident of Shivgarh, District Raebareli but since the maternal-uncle of the petitioner was a Teacher, hence, he orchestrated and got the admission of the petitioner in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli on the strength of created documents and after completing one academic year immediately a transfer certificate was taken from the said school and transfer admission was applied at PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

15. An oblique route was taken to first get the petitioner admitted in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli and then seek his transfer to PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow which was not bonafide. This was already informed to the father of the petitioner who thereafter made complaints and upon inquiry the aforesaid facts came into light and in the aforesaid circumstances, the representation of the petitioner 5 was also rejected on 24.09.2024 and in such circumstances where the complete academic session is over, now the relief which has been claimed cannot be granted, apart from the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court, accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. The Court has heard leaned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

17. At the very outset, the Court had enquired from the counsel for the petitioner regarding the status of the petitioner and it was informed that the petitioner has not been studying at all. It was further put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether apart from PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, the petitioner wishes to be accommodated in any other school, to which it was categorically answered that the petitioner will take admission in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow or not at all.

18. Apparently, an obstinate stand has been taken by the petitioner and his family for the reasons best known by them, but nevertheless, it is not a congenial stand considering the tender age of the petitioner and that it impacts his right to education.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5, on the basis of the instructions, had submitted that even today if the petitioner is willing, they can accommodate the petitioner in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli or even in Kendriya Vidyalaya Memaura Station Branch, Lucknow, but as already noticed above, the same has been declined. 6

20. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court has to examine the matter in light of the material before it.

21. Insofar as the fact that the petitioner was admitted in Class-III in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli, this fact is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the petitioner successfully completed his academic session and was promoted to Class-IV. At this stage, willingly the petitioner had taken transfer certificate from Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli without any assurance of admission in any other Kendriya Vidyalaya School.

22. The petitioner had applied for admission in Class-IV in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, however, the same came to be rejected by means of the order dated 24.05.2024. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the class strength and vacancy in the appropriate category is concerned, if this is seen in light of the guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya for 2024-25 onwards, it would reveal that the prescribed class strength is upto 32 students. Such students, who seek admission as a fresh admission or as a Kendriya Vidyalaya transfer students, the same is to be accorded preference as per their categories mentioned.

23. Admittedly, the petitioner would fall within the Category-V. Regulations 5, 6 and 7 if read together would reveal that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the amendment made in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Admission Guidelines 2024-25 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) would not help the petitioner. In the amendment, there are certain notes which are appended at the bottom and are marked by 7 astrick which has to be taken note of while reading the amendment especially the remarks column as indicated in Annexure No.8.

24. In this view, it could not be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how in light of the amended guidelines for admission, the petitioner could derive any benefit when it was not disputed that the petitioner belonged to Class-V Category.

25. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar other students have been granted admission and the petitioner has been discriminated also does not gain credence as from a perusal of Para-26 of the writ petition, it would indicate that certain students who were in Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli were given admission in different schools whereas in the case of the petitioner, it is his contention that he wanted admission only in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. None of the students have been granted admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had applied for admission in other Institutions which have been denied. Moreover, as noticed above, the petitioner was offered to take admission either in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya Memaura Station, Lucknow or Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli, but the same was refused and the petitioner as nowhere stated that he was ready to take admission in any other branch of Kendriya Vidyalaya except PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Thus, the same also does not help the case of the petitioner.

26. It will be relevant to notice that the ground taken by the respondents for refusal of admission in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, 8 Lucknow is that first and foremost the petitioner did not fall within the priority category and was under the Category V and moreover the class strength was beyond the prescribed limit.

27. Certain averments have been made against the petitioner and his family which revealed during inquiry made by the respondent No.5 to the effect that certain documents filed by the petitioner were not found to be genuine rather they had been created only for the purposes to get the petitioner admitted which has been used for filing this petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit but there is no straight or clear denial of the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit in this regard filed by the respondent No.5 and also in respect of Annexure No.4, 5 and 14 as filed by the petitioner with the writ petition.

28. Though it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that the aforesaid fact must be taken note of to see the conduct of the petitioner, but the fact remains that this Court is not inclined to necessarily give weightage to such documents which may not be directly in issue in the instant case. The fact that whether the said documents were genuine or not is not an issue. Moreover, the manner and the motive for which they were created is also not under consideration of this Court. Hence, any undue reference given to the said documents may not have any material bearing on the issue concerned.

29. The right to education has been elevated as a fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, however, it does not give a right to a person to seek admission in any one particular school. No plausible explanation was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the fact 9 that once the petitioner was withdrawn from Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivgarh, District Raebareli willingly and though he had applied in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, which was refused and it was made known to the petitioner on 24.05.2024 and since then no effort was made to put the child in any other school. This does not reflect well for the father of the petitioner.

30. Be that as it may, the orders which are under challenge if seen clearly indicates that the admission has been refused to the petitioner on the ground that there are no vacancies especially where the class strength limit already stands exceeded and the petitioner being under Category V student for the purpose of admission guidelines may not be in the preferential category to seek priority over other classes of parents for transfer admission.

31. The interpretation sought to be put by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the amended guidelines also does not sound to reason as that has to be seen in the context with the Regulations 5 to 7 and also noticing the astricks as mentioned in the amended guidelines remark column. Since, the view has been taken by the authorities which prima-facie does not appear to be palpably erroneous or in violation of any statutory provision, this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally not looking at the merits of the decision but examines the decision making process. The order dated 24.09.2024 also takes note of certain inquries relating to the petitioner and his family and the documents filed by them which have not been disputed but suffice to say it prima-facie gives credence to the fact that all the material has been taken note of by the 10 authority while taking a decision. Thus, it cannot be said that there has been violation of any right or any material has been ignored.

32. Moreover, the entire academic session of the petitioner has been wasted and despite the offer made by the respondent No.5 to accommodate the petitioner which has been refused, hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find that it is a fit case for entertaining the writ petition for the reliefs as prayed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 11.04.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench