IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 931 of 2009(J) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C).17935/2009 Dated 28/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------------------------------------------- 1. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, GOVT. OF INDIA, A-28, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, HYDERABAD REGIONAL OFFICE, H No.1-1-10/3, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, SECUNDERABAD - 500 003, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, CHENNITHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. BY MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. J.JAYASANKAR, MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS, REP.BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN, S.K.JAYAKUMAR, SANKARAMANGALAM, PUTHIYAVILA, PATTOLI MARKET P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 531. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE), NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY MR. GEORGE VARGHESE, PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL FOR R1. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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