IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH APRIL 2008 / 29TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10510 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. JASAR MUHAMMED A.K., AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.KUTTI ALI, AGED 39 YEARS, "SILVER COTTAGE" NEAR MANNIPPADY, R.D.NAGAR (P.O), KASARAGOD. 2. MANU KRISHNAN, AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER NARAYANAN K., FAHEEMA QUARTERS, UDAYAGIRI, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD. 3. SHIVESH S., AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER SHAMA BHAT, 'SHIVA GEETHAM', NATIONAL NAGAR, P.O.SHIRIBAGILU, KUDLU (VIA), KASARAGOD. 4. VISHAKHA BHAT H., AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER MANJUNATHA BAT.H., 'SUPRABATHA', M.G. NAGAR, PANNIPPARA, HIDAYATH NAGAR POST, KASARAGOD. 5. AMAN, AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER SAMEERL MPV 250 UDAYAGIRI, VIDYA NAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD. 6. HISHAM AHAMMED T.P., AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROGH GUARDIAN FATHER MUHAMMEDALI T.P., 'AKSAR MANZIL', KUNHIKKANAM P.O., ALAMPADY, KASARAGOD. 7. SIDHARTH T.V., AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER PRADEEPKUMAR T.V., GOVERNMENT COLLEGE QUARTERS 119/5, VIDYA NAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD. 8. HIBA SHAHZEEN, AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR,, THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER M.A.ASHRAF, 'LOVE DALE', NEAR I.T.I. COLLEGE, P.O.VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.10510/2008 A 9. UMASHANKAR, AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SHREEJA V.V., 'PAYSWNI', P.O.NAGAR, KASARAGOD. 10. ALISHA MARIA A.P., AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER NIRMALA AUGUSTINE PAKALOMATTOM HOUE, ULIYATHADKA, SHIRIBAGILU P.O KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HUMAN RESORTS DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 2. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHADAN, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNORS HEAD QUARTERS, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEETH SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI -110016. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHADAN, HEAD QUARTERS, 18 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEETH SINGH MARGH, NEW DELHI-110016. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHADAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, ST.JOHN'S ROAD, OPP: NAGA THEATRE, BANGALORE-560042 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO.II, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD-671123. BY SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SC, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON 18/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 10510 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 18, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are students in the pre-primary section of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Vidhyanagar, Kasaragod. They were admitted during the year 2007. According to them Ext.P1 is the rules that govern their admission and in terms thereof, they were entitled to be given automatic admission in class I following the priority in admission. 2. Petitioners would submit that by the time they completed the pre-primary course, to their utter dismay the 2nd respondent has decided to discontinue the practice of automatic admission from Pre-primary to Class I. It is stated that the 6th respondent had furnished a communication dated 14.12.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent based on a Board meeting held on 4.12.2006. In Ext.P2 it was stated that automatic admission to class I should be discontinued as admission to pre-primary classes is not based on priority which is followed for admission to class I. It is stated that WP(C) 10510/2008 Page numbers the reason stated in Ext.P2 is totally incorrect and that when the petitioners were put on notice of Ext.P2, their parents submitted Ext.P3 representation before respondents 2, 5 and 6 requesting for granting automatic admission. 3. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to be granted automatic admission to class I and as that benefit was denied by Ext.P2, they were facing the risk of being thrown out from the school without any possibility of getting admission to any other good school. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the decision of the 2nd respondent in the meeting held on 4.12.2006 as reflected in Ext.P2 and to direct the respondents to grant automatic admission to the petitioners to Standard I. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and 6. It is stated that in 2007, 18 students, including the petitioners, were admitted to the pre-primary class in the Kendriya Vidyalaya No.II, Kasaragod. According to the respondents, at the time of giving admission to them, it was made clear that no automatic admission will be given to Class I. It is stated that Ext.R2 WP(C) 10510/2008 Page numbers (a), a circular issued from the Head Office dated 13.3.2007 making this position clear, was published by the Principal based on the instructions from the Headquarters. It is also stated that in Ext.R2 (b), the provisional list of students selected for admission to pre- K.G. classes dated 30.3.2007 also it was specifically mentioned that admission to class I in the succeeding year will not be automatic. On this basis, it is contended that the petitioners were aware of the fact that they will not get automatic admission to class I at the time when they took admission in the pre-primary class in 2007. 5. Further, the respondents would also state that in 2007 when the students of Pre-K.G. in 2006 were sought to be denied admission to class I as of right, a writ petition was filed before this court as WP(C) No.7266/2007 challenging the decision of the authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, considering the fact that the students who were admitted in pre-primary classes in 2006 had no notice of the decision not to grant automatic admission to class I, to redress the grievance of such students, a concession was given before this court by the 2nd respondent that such students will be provided admission in class I automatically. It WP(C) 10510/2008 Page numbers is stated that the concession so given was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.R2(c) judgment. It is also contended that admission to class I is being processed strictly in accordance with the priority norms contained in the Admission Guidelines 2008. 6. Thus, the case of the respondents as is seen from their statement, is that at the time when the petitioners were granted admission, they were clearly informed that admission from pre- primary to class I would not be automatic. In fact, in Ext.R2(a) it has been made clear that the parents desirous to admit their children in class I will have to apply for fresh admission. Similarly, in Ext.R2(b), it is specifically made clear that admission to class I from pre- primary is not automatic with effect from 2008-09 as stated by the respondents. Since the fact that the admission to class I will not be automatic has been made clear in Ext.R2(a) and Ext.R2(b) and it is thereafter that the petitioners secured admission to pre-primary classes knowing fully well that they have no scope for claiming admission to class I automatically, after having secured admission on that basis and completing their course in the pre-primary classes, it is not open to the petitioners now to contend that by WP(C) 10510/2008 Page numbers Ext.P2 only they were informed that they will not get automatic admission to class I. 7. Facts being as above, it is not open to the petitioners to raise a contention against the decision of the authorities to dispense with automatic admissions. Once the petitioners have chosen to obtain admission and to undergo course knowing fully well that there will not be any automatic admission to Class I, the petitioners cannot turn around thereafter and contend that irrespective of the decision that was already taken and communicated to them, they should be granted admissions automatically. If at all they are desirous of securing admission, the course open to the petitioners is to apply afresh and stand in the queue and seek admission in terms of the priorities in the admission that is fixed in the admission guidelines issued by the respondents. I do not find any merit in the contentions raised. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-