Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti vs J.Jayasankar on 6 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 931 of 2009(J)


1. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA
3. THE PRINCIPLA, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA

                        Vs



1. J.JAYASANKAR, MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :06/10/2009

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
             -----------------------------------------
               Review Petition No.931 OF 2009
                                 IN
                  W.P.(C) No.17935 OF 2009
              ----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009.


                            O R D E R

This review petition is filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the

writ petition seeking to review the interim order dated

28.08.2009.

2. Heard Sri.P.K.Vijayamohanan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention

to Annexure II and various clauses therein in support of the

contentions raised in the review petition. Apparently, the

contention raised is that for admitting the student, again

appropriate directions will have to be issued by the CBSE and

unless a revised list is published by the CBSE by including the

name of the student herein, the Institution will not be justified in

granting admission to the student.

R.P.No.931/2009 2

4. I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted for

more reasons than one. When a complaint regarding refusal to

grant admission is raised before this Court, this Court will be

examining the issue in the light of various materials and legal

contentions raised by the parties. After finding that a prima facie

case is made out, to safeguard the interest of the parties, this

Court is justified in passing an interim order. It is accordingly the

interim order dated 28.08.2009 was passed after hearing all the

parties and after analysing the various contentions. The student

herein was already included in Exhibit R3(a) in the category of

Rural Open General as Sl.No.25. Exhibit P4 selection memo was

also issued to him. In the revised list also his name is included,

but the category was changed. It is therefore not correct to say

that in spite of the interim order passed by this Court, again the

CBSE will have to publish a revised list for complying with the

directions to admit the student.

I am not satisfied that there is an apparent error in the

impugned order. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp