IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37271 of 2007(K)
1. MINI BABU, WIFE OF BABU V.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN,
... Respondent
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (ACAD),
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
4. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA (NTPC),
5. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.BOBY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/01/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 37271 OF 2007 K
=====================
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s husband serving in the 12th Battalion in the
Madras Regiment has been transferred from Secunderabad to
Manipur. It is stated that her child was undergoing his Ist
standard in the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Secunderabad and Ext.P2
is the Transfer Certificate. Since there is no family
accommodation at Maniupur, the transferred place, petitioner
wanted to accommodate her child in the 4th respondent Kendriya
Vidyalaya, run by the 5th respondent. On the strength of Ext.P2,
P3 application was made for admission in the 4th respondent
school and that is now informed to be refused. Thereupon, this
writ petition has been filed praying for a declaration that the son
of the petitioner is entitled to be given admission to Class I in the
4th respondent school on the premises of the 5th respondent.
Petitioner is also seeking to quash Ext.P4 circular to the extent it
relates to the KV transfers.
WPC 37271/07
:2 :
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th
respondent and a counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th
respondent. 4th respondent would submit that although Ext.P5 is
the General Regulations that provide for admission on transfers
as well, in so far as project schools like the 5th respondent is
concerned, admission even on transfer is subject to the
provisions of Ext.P4 circular. It is stated that on receipt of the
application from the petitioner the matter was referred to the 5th
respondent, the project authority. They had declined to grant
admission and it is therefore that admission had to be refused.
The 5th respondent in its counter affidavit would submit that the
school was established to take care of the welfare of the wards of
their own employees and that limited number of seats alone is
made available to outsiders. It is stated that in view of the
constraint of infrastructure and resources and to maintain
excellence in the school, they had to limit admissions and hence
were forced to decline admission to the petitioner’s son as well.
3. Counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on Ext.P5 and
particularly Clause 12 thereof. True Clause 12 of Ext.P5 provides
that the children, who had not completed one accademic session
in the Vidyalaya of their initial admission will not be automatically
WPC 37271/07
:3 :
entitled to be admitted to another Vidyalaya, except if the
parents have been transferred to another location after the
admission of the child. It is also made clear that this would be
only after the concerned approval of the Assistant Commissioner.
It is also true that in this case, the child of the petitioner was
admitted in Kendriya Vidyalaya at Secunderabad. It is also true
that in view of the transfer of his parent, child is ordinarily
entitled to the benefit of this provision.
4. However, even according to the 4th respondent, as is
clear from para 5 of the statement filed, the benefit of Ext.P4 in
full is not available when it comes to the admissions in project
schools such as the 4th respondent. They would say that in the
matter of admission in project schools, it is governed by Ext.P4
circular as well. Ext.P4 provides that in any case of transfer to
project KV in respect of non project KV children will first be
referred to the Chairman, Vidyalaya Management Committee
(VMC) of the concerned Project KV and only after his/her
concurrence, the Assistant Commissioner concerned will issue
orders for admission on transfer in the Project KV.
5. In this case, on receipt of Ext.P3 application of the
petitioner, it was referred to the Chairman of the VMC and it is on
WPC 37271/07
:4 :
account of his refusal that admission was declined. It is clear
from the affidavit filed that it was on account of constraints of
infrastructure and for maintaining accademic excellence and
efficiency of teachers, the 5th respondent has decided not to grant
admission to additional students. For bonafide reasons, if the 5th
respondent has taken such a decision, about which I have no
material to conclude otherwise, this court will not be justified in
upsetting the same.
6. True, the counsel for the petitioner made reference to
Ext.P6 interim order passed by this court in an identical
situation. But then, it is also pointed out that in an appeal filed
as WA 2918/07 against the aforesaid interim order, a Division
Bench of this court, after upholding the interim order however
has held that the interim order in the writ petition need not be
treated as precedent in any case. Therefore, nothing turns
Ext.P6 to be of advantage to the petitioner.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp