IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37271 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MINI BABU, WIFE OF BABU V., SANGEETHA NIVAS, AYIKKADU, CHINGOLI VIII, CHEPPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-690 570 BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SRI.E.T.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110016, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (ACAD), KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHATHAN, 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG,NEW DELHI-110016. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHATHAN, CHENNAI. 4. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA (NTPC), KAYAMKULAM, CHEPPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 5. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SC FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R5 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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