JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. In this petition filed in public interest the first petitioner is an organisation consisting of some of the associations of employees of [ENTITY] (hereinafter KVS, for short). The second petitioner is a registered society consisting mostly of senior advocates of the Supreme Court formed for the purpose of taking up public interest litigations in the Courts in an organized and systematic manner so as to question and check the arbitrary and mala fide activities of the State and public officials or in the administration. The challenge is laid to discretionary quotas of allotting seats for admission in [ENTITY] (hereinafter KVs, for short) spread throughout the country. The scheme is entitled as the Scheme for Special Dispensation Admissions in [ENTITY] and is contained in Office Memorandum No. 3(i)-5/97-UT.2 dated 3.7.9[SECTION] issued by Government of lndia, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education.
2. It is not disputed that KVs were first set up in 1963 to execute a recommendation of the Second Central Pay Commission advocating a network of schools all over the country to cater to the secondary education needs of transferable Central Government employees both civilians and defense personnel so that the mid-session, frequent and interstate transfers of parents do not disturb the education of their children due to change in syllabi and medium of instructions.
3. KVs have Syllabi, media of instructions, calendar, text books, uniform, scheme & pattern of examinations all common and as such the students feel at home even if they are transferred alongwith their families to places and states where state-schools follow a different medium of instructions course, syllabus, textbooks etc. Since defense personnel undergo frequent transfers [ENTITY] have mostly been set up at places which have conglomeration of defense personnel e.g. air force stations, cantonments, naval stations etc. Other places are those where sizeable number of clusters of civilian employees of Central Government having an all India transfer liability or employees of organisations like BHEL, HAL, NTPC, ONGC etc are situated.
4. An autonomous body named [ENTITY] (hereinafter KVS, for short) has been set up under the [ACT] to open and manage [ENTITY] all over the country. The [ENTITY] have a fourfold mission, namely:
(i) to cater to the educational needs of children of transferable Central Government employees including defense and Paramilitary personnel by providing a common programme of education;
(ii) to pursue excellence and set the pace in the field of school education;
(iii) to initiate and promote experimentation and innovations in education in collaboration with other bodies like the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) etc.;
(iv) to develop the spirit of national integration and create a sense of 'Indianness' among children.
5. The [ENTITY] have the following features :
(i) common text books and bilingual medium of instruction;
(ii) affiliation to the CBSE;
(iii) coeducation and composite system;
(iv) teaching of Sanskrit from class V to IX. Students also study Sanskrit as an additional optional subject in class X and as an elective at +2 stage.
(v) preference in admission to children whose parents had the higher number of transfers during the previous seven years;
(vi) maintenance of an appropriate teacher-pupil ratio to ensure quality of teaching;
(vii) waiver of tution fees for boys upto class VIII, for girls and for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe students, besides the children of the employees of the [ENTITY] (KVS) upto class XII,
6. Every year20-25 [ENTITY] are opened though demand and need therefor is manifold. The Fourth Central Pay Commission and Department Related Standing Committee of Parliament have recommended more [ENTITY] being opened to cater to the needs of wards of transferable central employees.
7. Guidelines for admission in KVS have been filed by the petitioners as Annexure P-2. There are three kinds of [ENTITY] :
(i) KVs in defense and civil services
(ii) KVs in institution of higher learning fully financed by the Central Government.
(iii) KVs in public sector undertakings fully financed by the Central Government.
7.1. The guidelines provide for eligibility criteria to seeking admissions. They also provide for eligibility and relevant considerations for admissions occasioned by events such as transfer of the parent, retirement of the parent, parent being posted to the field areas where no [ENTITY] is situated and so on.
[SECTION]. [ACT] was introduced sometime in the year 1975 when a provision was made for 100 such admissions per year which did not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in the guidelines. Such number of dispensation admissions rose to about 15,000 per year in 1995. It appears that there were resentments against special dispensation admissions. In the meeting of Board of Directors/Board of Governors held in 19[SECTION]7 the Board formed an opinion mat special dispensation leads to dilution of educational standards in KVs because it inflates the class strength.
9. Earlier CWP 30[SECTION]5/94 was filed by the petitioner No. 1 challenging validity and rationale of the special dispensation admissions in KVs.By an interim order, such admissions were stayed. The Cabinet took a decision abolishing all discretionary powers and quotas of Ministers/ Ministries. Special Dispensation ad missions stood abolished. To that effect an affidavit was filed on behalf of KVS in the Court. The Court passed the following order on 11.4.97 :
"In view of the categorical stand taken in the affidavit of Sh. [ENTITY] and in view of the fact that no admissions shall be granted on the basis of special dispensation, the present writ petition has become infructuous. The same is, therefore, disposed of. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioners to take appropriate legal proceedings as and when it is deemed necessary."
10. On 3rd July, 199[SECTION] the Scheme has been reintroduced. To enable the same being examined in the light of the challenge laid, it is reproduced hereunder:
Guidelines for Special Dispensation Admission in [ENTITY].
Each Member of Parliament can refer two cases in an academic year. Children may be admitted to different classes of KVs if,
(i) either of his/her parents or both have died; or
(ii) either of his/her parents or both are mentally ill or physically handicapped; or
(iii) either he or she has been abandoned by either of his or her parents; or
(iv) his or her parents are persons under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocities, flood, drought, earthquake or other natural disasters; or
(v) his or her parents are living below poverty line; or either of his or her parents belongs to any socially disadvantaged group such as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward class; or
(vi) there is non-availability of access to educational institutions within the locality where the parents of the child are residing; or
(vii) either of his or her parents live in any place in difficult areas including North Eastern Region; or
(viii) either of his or her parents has been sentenced to imprisonment on conviction or otherwise detained for a term exceeding five years; or
(ix) he or she is a disabled child; or
(x) he or she is a child or grand child of freedom fighter who is in receipt of pension from Central/State Government for his participation in the struggle for freedom (proof to be furnished); or
(xi) either of his/her parents is transferred to a place where no [ENTITY] exists; or
(xii) he or she is a child who is winner of National bravery awards of the national or state level; or
(xiii) he or she is a child or a teacher who has won National/president's award; or
(xiv) he or she has shown special ability in sports or fine arts.
Notes :
(1) Special Dispensation Admission would be made in the beginning of the academic year and no admission would be made after the prescribed cutoff date.
(2) Admissions of children on the aforementioned grounds shall not exceed 5% of the total admission/sanctioned strength in a class in an academic year.
(3) The recommendations are subject to the condition of eligibility of the child in respect of age and fitness in admission test to be conducted by [ENTITY] for one class lower than the class for which recommendations have been made.
(4) The parents/guardians will have to produce the required certificate authenticating the category to which the child belongs, at the time of admission in the [ENTITY].
(5) The admissions on either of the above grounds will be made on the recommendations of a committee specifically constituted for the purpose.
(6) The last date for receipt of applications is 31st July, 199[SECTION].
11. Pursuant to the Scheme the respondent No. 2 has issued a circular letter to all the members of parliament asking for two recommendations by each by 31st July, 199[SECTION], in the following proforma :
KVs No. (NAME AND ADDRESS OF M.P.) F.No
Dear [ENTITY], I am to refer to your letter No. F 3.1.9[SECTION] KVS (Admission Cell) dated 6.7.9[SECTION] regarding the recommendations for admission of the children in [ENTITY] under special dispensation and recommend the following two names whose particulars are given below :
Sl.No. Name of the child Father's Name Class Category under which eligible Name of K.V. Residential Address
The above two recommendations are for the session 199[SECTION]-991 may be apprised of the action taken ir. this regard.
Yours sincerely, (Signature) Commissioner, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Delhi-110016.
12. According to the petitioners, the guidelines for special dispensation are absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable. The categories are flexible and capable of being stretched. Almost anyone and everyone can be a beneficiary by being made to fall in one or the other of the categories by playing in the joints. With about [SECTION]00 Members of Parliament and the Hon'ble Minister, a power to admit about 2,600 children from the backdoor can be exercised much to the chagrin and at the cost of those deserving but waiting at the front gate. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the special dispensation scheme takes affront with the very foundation of objectives underlying KVS. It is arbitrary unreasonable and capricious. It results in denying admissions to some extent to those for whom it is meant. It also results in not only diluting but adulterating the educational standards of an otherwise meritorious institution maintaining high standards of education.
13. The petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that the guidelines for special dispensation admissions in KVs are to be read alongwith the circular letter issued by KVs to all its Assistant Commissioners (reproduced in the succeeding para). The beneficiaries of the special dispensation scheme are not to be granted admissions merely because they have been so recommended. All the recommendations are subject to a further and rigorous scrutiny. The Assistant Commissioners are to collect the details regarding parent/ child in regard to the admissions and forward the same to the headquarters which in rum would be put up to the Committee set up for the purpose of finalising the admissions. The methodology adopted by the KVS takes care that only genuine cases strictly covered by the Scheme are allowed admissions and so the special dispensation ceases to be vulnerable to the challenge laid by the petitioners.
13.1. Letter dated 5.[SECTION].9[SECTION] issued by KVS to all its Assistant Commissioners requires certain documents to be produced by the applicant for admission under special dispensation scheme. The documents required are as under:
Category Documents required
1. A Certificate from recognised Hospital/Local/Authorities/ Notified areas, etc.
2. A Certificate from Govt. Hospital or the Specialised Institute established for the purpose.
3. Copy of the Legal document/FIR or an Affidavit
4. A Certificate from the District Authorities or any other organisation authorised for the purpose.
5. A certificate from BDO/Tehsildar/Revenue Officer. In regard to SC/ST/OBC, the Competent Authority, notified by the Government.
6. A Declaration by the parent/legal guardian, on plain paper, in the presence of Principal.
7. Any acceptable proof like Electoral Identity Card /Ration Card/ Passport/stating the location of the difficult station.
[SECTION]. A copy of the orders passed by the Court of Law or Jailor where imprisoned.
9. Same as category 2
10. Copy of the Pension Orders as Freedom Fighter and proof in regard to the grandchild.
11. Copy of the transfer orders/placement orders.
12. Copy of the Certificates awarded for Bravery by National/State Government.
13. Copy of the National Award to teacher
14. Special Achievement at least in District Level or equivalent competition organized by a recognised body by the State Government/Government of India.
13.2. By letter dated 14.[SECTION].9[SECTION], the methodology to be adopted for determining the poverty line as given under [SECTION] of the special dispensation scheme has been laid down. The table enclosed therewith provides for monthly per-capita income as determinative of the poverty line.
13.3. It is submitted that the scheme is neither arbitrary nor capricious. In the submission of the respondents the scheme satisfied the twin criteria of absolute necessity and a small number. The guidelines have been vetted by the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and approved by the Minister for Human Resources Development and Chairman, [ENTITY]. In the Scheme, special dispensation admissions are made over and above the normal admissions and therefore the interest of the children ordinarily entitled to admissions is not harmed. The total number of admissions is very small and does not exceed 2690 in any case. The number is very small compared to the total students strength of 7.4 lakhs approximately and fresh admissions in class-I of approximately 63,000 per year. There is a further restriction on special dispensation admissions viz. 5% of total admissions/sanctioned strength in a class in any academic year. On account of this ceiling the maximum number of such admissions would be less than 2,690.
13.4. A Committee has been especially set up which monitors and scrutinizes with rigidity the recommendations made under the Scheme. It consists of the following :
(i) Addl Secretary (Education) - Chairman
(ii) Commissioner - KVS
(iii) Chief Welfare Officer of Deptt. of Personnel & Training.
(iv) Representative of the Department of Legal Affairs not below the rank of Joint Secretaries and Legal Advisors.
This Committee satisfies itself of the eligibility criteria and can even reject the recommendations if a case does not fall within the guidelines. Thus it works as an opposite check.
13.5. The admissions of children finalised till 2[SECTION].[SECTION].9[SECTION] by this Committee are as below :
Recommended by No. of references Admissions finalised Minister of HRD & Minister of State (HRD) Members of Parliament Total 13.6. The 14 categories under the Scheme are not ornamental. They can be classified into following groups :
(I) Children under severe hardship conditions Children with single parent or without both parents (Category 1);
children of mentally ill/physically handicapped parents (Category 2);
destitute children (Category 3);
victims of mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocities, flood, drought, earth quake or other natural disasters (Category 4);
children living below poverty line or belonging to disadvantaged group such as SC/ST/OBC (Category 5);
children of convicts (Category [SECTION]); and disabled children ([SECTION]);
(II) Children who suffer due to non-access to educational institutions; Categories 6, 7 and 11.
(III) Recognition for Special talent or achievement; Categories 12, 13 and 14.
(IV) Recognition for Service to the Nation Category 10 13.7. The admission guidelines provide for reservation for SC/ST children to the extent of 22.5% (15 SCs + 7.5 STs). This quota is generally not fully exhausted. The enrollment statistics for the year 1996-97 shows that only 10.9% SCs and 3.2% STs were studying in [ENTITY]. The meager allocation for SCs/STs under the Scheme is perfectly in consonance with the national policy of the Government in this regard.
14. The petitioners have come out with a rejoinder pointing out certain facts which in their submissions demonstrate the arbitrariness not only of the Scheme but also in its implementation.
14.1. Having perused the documents, the petitioners have sought to demonstrate a few facts before the Court, which facts it would be appropriate if are extracted and reproduced from paras 13 and 14 of the rejoinder as under :
"13. The contents of these papers make an interesting reading and even a cursory glance at these will convince your Lordships that special dispensation admissions are, in a very real sense, a largesse to Members of Parliament and Minister of HRD to be distributed among their favourites, party workers, subordinates, bureaucrats, members of KVS etc.
(a) At page 11 there are seven names recommended neither by a Member of Parliament nor a Minister but by a firm which undertakes BJP's printing work.
(b) Another example is the decision of the KVS arrived at the 29th meeting held on 21.7.9[SECTION] and reproduced by the first respondents as an Annexure to their counter affidavit on 2.9.9[SECTION] stating that each of (about25) members of KVS would be entitled to four admissions per year. No wonder, that all those who attended this meetings of KVS, which was held after in interval of full three years appreciated the gesture. Is this not a largesse?
(c) At page 12 appear 3 names of children of the same father seeking admission in standard 3rd and 5th. Names of KVs have not been mentioned. These have been chased further through the officers of KVs and after allotment of categories admissions have been done.
(d) Next is the case of Sh.[ENTITY] at page 13 whose main property is that he is a member of ruling BJP. No category has been mentioned and yet admission has been managed.
(e) Sh.[ENTITY] is an I AS officer who has recommended 10 names in all without categorisation and all have been given admissions. Three of these appear at page 14.
(f) At pages 15, 16 appear the name of Master [ENTITY] who happens to be a son of peon who is attached to Sh. [ENTITY], a Director in the Ministry of HRD. Admission has been "given over and above 100 admissions earmarked for the children of employees of this Ministry.
(g) At page 17 appears yet another of a parent whose outstanding property is that he is an active worker of the BJP organisation.
(h) At page 19 appears the name of one master [ENTITY], S/o. Sh. [ENTITY] a Section Officer in CPWD, New Delhi. Till recently he was studying in Green Field Public School, S.J. Enclave, a public school. Overnight he slipped below poverty line, sought admission under special dispensation and got it.
14. The names and details of cases recommended by different officers of different Ministries/departments of Government of India and personal assistants etc appear at serial number 69 - 123 in the fifth list prepared by [ENTITY] at the instance the minister of HRD. None of these refers to any categorisation and yet each of them has got admission.
After, of course, allotting categories to them. These are at pages 22 to 30. Examples are an army."
14.2. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that out of 1[SECTION]90 admissions allowed under the Scheme around 70% have been allowed at Delhi alone and 75% of the admissions are referable to category (vi) only, which facts bear testimony to the validity of the challenge laid by the petitioners.
15. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for both the parties have dealt with each of the categories covered by the special dispensation scheme. While the learned Counsel for the respondents has highlighted the rationale/justification behind each of the categories, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out how the categories are arbitrary and unreasonable and hence liable to be struck-down. It will be useful to note in little details the criticism levelled by learned Counsel for the petitioners to each of the categories forming part of the Scheme. The same is noticed hereunder :
Category 1. Either of his/her parents or both have died :
This category is vague and contrary to the stated object. To an extent it is already provided for in relation to "The wards of transferable Central Government employees including defense personnel who the in harness" and there is no reason to duplicate the said category.
Category 2. Either of his/her parents or both are mentally ill or physically handicapped :
This category is vague and contrary to the stated object. The mental or physical handicap has not been defined in terms of time, degree or nature. There exist clearly defined conditions, degrees and time and origin of the handicap. Moreover such handicap has no relation with the need for admission in a [ENTITY].
Category 3. Either he or she has been abandoned by either of his or her parents:
This category is vague and contrary to the stated object Abandonment ought not to be a criteria. Single parent can be legally understood only in the event the parent is/was a Government employee under transfer and the child is not already studying in an existing school. There can be no abandonment of the child if either parent is alive. Thus the category is extremely ambiguous and in most likely to be abused by the sponsors of the provision.
Category 4. His or her parents are persons under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocities, flood, drought, earthquake or other natural disasters :
This category is vague and contrary to the stated object. In cases of mass disaster and acts of God even the [ENTITY] in the area of such affliction would be adversely affected, so this fact by itself cannot be a criteria. The criteria can be relevant only in the event of the relocation of the family to another town within specified time limits. Circumstances of undeserved want (given examples of) call for economic assistance, job-opportunities and educational concessions such as stipend/scholarships etc. and not a Special Dispensation Admission in a [ENTITY] where educational pattern may be different to state-educational pattern and the student might be already studying only in a state school and a change over to a [ENTITY] might lead to more problems for his. The canvass of this category is all-prevasive.
Category 5. His or her parents are living below poverty line; or either of his or her parents belongs to any socially disadvantaged group such as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class :
This category is vague and contrary to the stated object. The [ENTITY] were set up to fulfilll the educational needs of a specified and special sector of society viz. Central Government Employees both civilians and defense personnel, who are subjected to temporary dislocation of their families because of their having an all India transfer liability. Government servants can not be said to be below poverty line. Poverty line is an absurd criteria (in this context). Reference to Planning Commission documentation by the Government is wholly inapposite.
State Governments have set-up Schools to cater to the needs, among others, for those living below-poverty line. Moreover, for such children, having promise of merit, Navodaya Vidyalayas are ideal schools as these are residential and the entire expenditure is borne by the Central Government.
About 15% of the total admissions under the provision of Special Dispensation Admission cleared till date relate to this category. It, therefore, clearly establishes that such an ambiguous and arbitrary criteria is already being abused.
As regards SC/ST children, reservation of 15% and 7.5% already exists in admission policy of the second Respondent. Moreover, the admitted position is that these quotas have never been exhausted. Hence further provision under Special Dispensation Admission for these castes is wholly unwarranted.
So far as OBCs are concerned there is no provision for any concession in matter of admission to these classes at any stage and hence inclusion of these classes under this category is not justified.
Category 6. There is non availability of access to educational institutions within the locality where the parents of the child are residing :
This category is vague and contrary to the stated object. It is the most abused category. The contention that 'non-availability of access to educational institutions within the locality where the parents of the child are residing' do not mean non-existence of educational institutions within the locality where the parents of the child are residing, is erroneous. The contention that this category caters to those who have failed to get admission in other schools in the locality is contrary to the record. A large number of persons who have been admitted in this category have filed transfer certificates from schools where they were already undergoing instructions.
About more than [SECTION]0% of the children admitted/cleared for admission till date fall in this category No. 5 & 6. These two categories, therefore, are the most abused categories. Hence this category, along with [SECTION], has opened the floodgates for admissions under the [ACT]. The present limit of 5% can be converted into 10%, 15% or 20% subsequently by either the Government of India or the Minister of HRD or the Special Dispensation Committee constituted, in reality, to implement these admissions rather than monitor them.
A sample survey of admissions cleared by the committee for admissions to a [ENTITY] in Delhi (e.g. Gole Market) brings to light the alarming fact that the majority children admitted/cleared for admission in this Vidyalaya had already been studying in different schools in and around the locality where the parents of the Child are residing. Hence the question of inaccessibility in educational institutions of the locality is simply non-existent.
Thus ex-facie the category is artificial, tailored to suit the requirements of its architects and deserves to be set aside.
Category 7. Either of his or her parents live in any place in difficult areas including North Eastern Region :
This category is vague. Living in "difficult areas" or the North Eastern region does not call for a bonanza of admission in a [ENTITY] in any other area. If the officer has been transferred to a "difficult area" his child will be admitted in the [ENTITY] in the said area. The fact of transfer to a "difficult area" does not in any manner entitle the said person to seek admission of his ward in a Kendriya Vidayalaya in an area which is not a "difficult area" Delhi for example.
Present certification documentation and procedure may be altered to suit the convenience of distributors of this admission-larges.
Category [SECTION]. Either of his or her parents has been sentenced to imprisonment on conviction or otherwise detained for a term exceeding five years :
No time of conviction has been specified except the duration. This duration of five years might be for a period years before the occasion to have a ward admitted in a school and is hence rendered meaningless if tile person is not under incarceration at the relevant time, particularly when the child is already studying in another local school.
[SECTION]. He or she is a disabled child :
The criteria is vague, liable for abuse and contrary to the objects of the Sangathan. Nature, time of origin and degree/percentage of disability has not been specified and in its generality lends it to be misused more often than not.
Category 10. He or she is a child or grand child of freedom fighter who is in receipt of pension from Central/State Government for his participation in the struggle for freedom (proof to be furnished) :
Freedom fighters deserve all respect, regard and pensions. They have been provided with certain perks like free travel etc. under various Government schemes. Educational concessions for their children may also be justified and have been extended without objection from any quarters what so ever. However, to bestow a [ENTITY] seat upon the grand child of a freedom fighter is not justified particularly when it is in the form of breaking a queue or getting the same at the cost of those for whom the Sangathan was formed and who deserve it the most.
The provision is only ornamental.
Category 11. Either of his/her parents is transferred to a place where no [ENTITY] exists :
This category is illogical, in that, it relates to a child who does not presently study in a [ENTITY]. If the child is in a [ENTITY] on transfer of the parent such child will be covered by the existing norms/ priority. Now, when the child is not presently studying in a [ENTITY] say in 'A' city/town, how it is deemed necessary if his father is transferred to 'B' city/town, where no Kendirya Vidyalaya exists, that such child should be bestowed with a seat in a [ENTITY] located in 'A' city/town.
No specification has been made as to 'B' city/town whether it is within the state or outside it, or is an intra-lingual or inter-lingual region, to warrant such admission, if at all.
Category 12. He or she is a child who is winner of National bravery award of the national or state level :
The category is ornamental. The question is that in class 1 stage where a majority of these admissions are made the criteria cannot be fulfillled. This is why hardly anyone as applied for admission in a [ENTITY] under Special Dispensation Admission scheme in this category. Children who win National Bravery Awards or State bravery Awards are welcome to any educational institution not excluding [ENTITY]. However, these are very few in number, fewer still who opt for a seat in a [ENTITY]. As such the Commissioner [ENTITY] who is the executive head of the whole organisation may be authorised to admit them, if they applied for admission in any [ENTITY] of their choice.
Category 13. He or she is a child of a teacher who has won National/ President's Award; or The category is ornamental. The question is that in class 1 stage where a majority of these admissions are made the criteria cannot be fulfillled. Hardly any has applied for admission in a [ENTITY] under Special Dispensation Admission scheme in this category. The number of children in this category being negligible a provision as suggested under [SECTION] above may be made for children of teachers winning National/President's Award also.
Category 14. He or she has shown special ability in sports or fine arts.
The category is ornamental. The question is that in class 1 stage where a majority of these admission are made the criteria cannot be fulfillled. This is why hardly any has applied for admission in a [ENTITY] under Special Dispensation Admission scheme in this category.
No levels or degrees of achievement have been specified. This renders it ambiguous and elastic, hence liable to be misused more often man not. For example, in case of a child, aspiring to seek admission in I or II class no parameters have been or can be prescribed to evaluate/judge the 'special ability' of the child in sports and fine arts.
16. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, justified the categorisation made by the Scheme and submitted that it envisages a very small number of admissions. Each of the categories contemplates an event by reference to which the category can be carved out so as to amount to a defined class and is intended either to honour a distinguished achievement in the interest of nation or to eliminate the suffering or deprivation caused by an unfortunate event. Reference was made to Shivsagar Tiwari v. UOI, 1996 (9) SCALE 6[SECTION]0; Centre for PIL v. UOI, 1995 (Suppl.3) SCC 3[SECTION]2 and [PRECEDENT], popularly known as house allotment case, petrol pump allotment case and maruti allotment case respectively, to submit that most of the categories have been picked up from the pronouncements of their Lordships of the Supreme Court borrowing from or adopting a phraseology employed by their Lordships. At the end it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that each of the categories satisfies the need of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
16.1. As to the charge of the categories being loosely worded and so defined as to afford such elasticity as permits their being bended and stretched so as to enlarge scope thereof to suite the occasions for misutilisation, it was submitted that the guidelines can be read down in the light of the documents required to be produced by the applicant for admission coupled with the fact that the recommendations have to withstand the rigorous test of independent scrutiny applied by the committee for selections and so none of the categories can be misused.
17. We find that there is merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. We would like to make certain general observations.
17.1. We can understand each Member of Parliament being allowed the privilege of recommending two admissions in a year. Being representatives of the people in a democracy, they have grass root level connections and in their respective Constituencies they do know the people and can be expected to have a better understanding of their needs and hardships. They can come across such cases where a child deserves an admission in a KV but cannot get it unless allowed by way of special dispensation. However, this can be true of the constituency which the Member of Parliament represents. Allowing the privilege of two admissions anywhere in the country without regard to the factor of the constituency represented by the M.P. becomes a largesse. The privilege of special dispensation admission conferred on a Member of Parliament must therefore be related to the Constituency of the concerning Member of Parliament. In other words, the Member of Parliament may make recommendations regarding such children or parents who belong to his Constituency either by domicile or on account of having been soon-before-posted thereat or else who on account of exigencies of service migrate into his Constituency and therefore need to have recourse to special dispensation admission.
17.2. The Hon. Minister has the privilege available to him recommending for admissions any where in the entire country. The Minister once appointed represents the country and not the Constituency. His having the quota for the KVs spread throughout the country can be understood but the same should be suitably divided State-wise. Appointing a lump-sum quota may result into such exercise as has been demonstrated by the petitioner that lion's share of such admissions goes to Delhi only.
17.3. Inspite of a proforma having been prescribed for making recommendations we have found chit recommendations being made. The documents filed by the petitioners with the rejoinder go to show a number of aspirants seeking special dispensation solely because of their are belonging to a particular political party which the scheme never intended nor contemplated. A few bureaucrats and politicians have made recommendations solely because someone was attached to or working with them. Aspirants come with a prayer drawn upon a piece of paper and recommendations are made by inscribing "recommended" in the corner of the paper. Suffice it to observe that such exercise of power to make special recommendations for admissions merely for asking results into frustrating the scheme itself and invites criticism wild but justified / The committee would do well not to entertain any recommendations which are not in the prescribed proforma. It is true that a mere matter of form should not be permitted to defeat the substance but at times, as is the case at hand, insistence on proforma is conducive to the fulfillment of the objective of the Scheme of which the proforma is a part.
17.4. We have to keep in view that the Scheme permits out of turn admissions and at the cost of educational merit and also at the cost of those waiting in the queue at the main entrance. Some of the categories are too wide and arbitrarily elastic because they do not have any co-relation with the event from which they take colour in terms of proximity of time with which the category is associated. For example take [SECTION]. Either parent may have died 10 years before and yet the child would fall in the category. So is the case with [SECTION] and [SECTION]. Take the case of [SECTION], the disaster, the violence or the natural calamity might have taken place 25 years before and adversely effected the parents and yet the child would be entitled to the benefit of the category. Unfortunate events, man made or nature afflicted leave a person deserted, destitute in harness or wrecked. He needs to be taken care of by the Society. With the lapse of time he settles; at times is in a position to restore himself. This phenomenon enables drawing a dividing line. Close proximity of time with the fateful event enables the person being classified into a class; with the lapse of time the dividing line obliterates. If thereafter the event is assigned relevance for the purpose of classification, the classification becomes artificial and becomes vulnerable to [SECTION] of the [ACT].
17.5. Take the categories 6 & 7. In [SECTION] what is the meaning of access and its non-availability?. What types of educational institutions are contemplated? The locality would mean the district, the city or the ward or mohalla of the residence of the parents ? In [SECTION] it would not have been difficult for the framers of the guidelines to identify and catalogue the 'difficult areas.' But the phrase 'difficult areas' has been left to be defined by the administrators of the Scheme and the seekers of the benefit.
17.6. In [SECTION], 'disability' has been left undefined. The disability can be physical or mental or both. The degree of disability may vary. The guidelines do not make it clear what kind of disability and of what magnitude or extent is contemplated by the scheme.
17.7. These deficiencies which we have pointed out hereinabove are not taken care of even by the documents required to be produced. Even the application of rule of reading down would not enable getting rid of the arbitrariness and the anomalies inherent in the Scheme.
1[SECTION]. KVS was founded and brought up for a specified purpose and is meant to serve a well defined class of society the paramount feature whereof is All India mobility on account of nature of service. With the lapse of time, high standards and excellence maintained by KVs in the field of education have earned recognition. The strength of KV as available, is not enough to cater to the needs of the society which it is intended to serve and to fulfilll the aims and objects which are its very foundation. The Dispensation Scheme is destructive of such aims and objects. It also compromises with the standards and excellence achieved and maintained by KVs. An attempt at tinkering with the system was made in 1975. When the special dispensation attempts were brought under fire in the year 1994 by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court the Scheme was withdrawn in the year 1997. The possibility of the Scheme having been withdrawn with a view to escaping the judicial scrutiny cannot be ruled out. No sooner the dust settled, once again the scheme has been introduced. Many a situations forming basis for special dispensation admission under the Scheme are already covered by the rules of routine admissions in KVS. There was no occasion for making a provision in the Scheme over and above what was already available. Provision could have been made for showing preference for a limited percentage of admissions in certain special categories on well defined basis deserving a preferential treatment and then the same could have been left to be taken care of by the system itself. We fail to appreciate why certain categories are considered to be in need of care to be taken of by the intervention of those who are extraneous to the system when the system itself is capable enough of taking such care. We are also at a loss to understand why the need arose for tampering with the cut off date of 31st July. It needs hardly any reasoning to demonstrate that once the course of study has commenced anyone joining the course midstream for the first time would either be not in a position to adjust with the flow or would obstruct the smooth sailing of others. We are not recording any finding that any particular party or person wielding power administrative or political has deliberately misused the Scheme. However, what is writ large on the record cannot be omitted from being mentioned. The Scheme has built up high hopes amongst the workers or associates of a particular political party and they have started thinking that their children or wards can have back-door entry into KVs by approaching those who have been conferred the privilege of recommending admissions under the Scheme and the time is opportune for materialising their such hopes. In our opinion, the [ACT] has been so worded and elastically framed as to provide entry to those for whom it is not meant. The Special Dispensation Admission Scheme (Annexure P4) therefore, falls foul of [SECTION] of the [ACT] being arbitrary and irrational, also frustrating the object sought to be achieved by KVs and is, therefore, liable to be struck down.
19. Though the Scheme is being struck down we have to take care to protect the interest of those whose admissions were either cleared or recommended by the Committee upto 2[SECTION].[SECTION].9[SECTION], the date on which this Court had passed an interim order staying further admissions under the Scheme. Those students who have already been admitted under the Scheme or those who have been cleared for admissions by the Committee must have rested their hopes or may have already commenced taking instructions in KVS. Striking down their admissions would adversely tell upon their career and the loss may be irreparable.
20. The petition is allowed. The impugned scheme is struck down as violative of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Admissions already made or cleared by the Committee upto 2[SECTION].[SECTION].9[SECTION] under the Scheme shall not be adversely affected by this order. No order as to costs.