IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 W A.No. 2263 of 2009 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17935/2009 Dated 28/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)//RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, A-28, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NAVODAYA VIDAYALAYA SAMITI, HYDERABAD REGIONAL OFFICE, H.NO.1-110/3, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, SECUNDERABAD - 500003, ANDHRA PRADESH, 3. THE PRINCIPAL, JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA, CHENNITHALA P.O. ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. JAYASANKAR, MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN, S.K. JAYAKUMAR, SANKARAMANGALAM, PUTHIYAVILA, PATTOLI MARKET P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690531. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE), NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) R2 BY ADV. SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2263 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 28th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. He was a student, who sought admission in the third appellant's school. Ext.P3 is the application submitted by the first respondent. He claimed admission under the General-Rural quota. He also claimed that he was visually impaired. The selection of students is made by the second respondent herein. The third appellant can only admit students from the list forwarded by the second respondent, CBSE. Since there were no sufficient candidates in the quota for physically challenged persons, the first respondent was included in that quota. Though he has claimed that he was visually impaired, since his disability was less than 40%, he was not entitled to get admission under the said quota. WA No.2263 of 2009 - 2 - According to the first respondent, even though he is visually impaired, his claim under the general rural quota should also be considered. If he is considered in that quota, he would have found a place in the list of candidates under the general rural quota. In fact, he was initially included in the general rural category. Later, his name was transposed to the quota for physically challenged. Therefore, the third appellant did not admit him in the general rural quota. In the above context, on finding that the selection under the physically challenged quota will not be of any help to him, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, directed the appellants herein to admit the first respondent/Writ Petitioner by an interim order. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this Writ Appeal is filed by them. 2. The appellants would point out that admissions have to be confined to the persons included in the list forwarded by the second respondent. Since the second WA No.2263 of 2009 - 3 - respondent did not include the first respondent in the general rural quota, he cannot be admitted. 3. The first respondent would submit that even if he is claiming reservation, if he is entitled to be considered in the general rural quota, he should be considered in the said quota. If he does not find a place in the general rural quota, then only his claim in the reservation quota need be considered. Since the disability of the first respondent is less than 40%, the non-inclusion in the general rural quota will seriously prejudice him. So, the learned Single Judge has rightly issued the impugned order, it is submitted. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent CBSE submitted that if the first respondent was considered in the general rural quota, he would have found a place in that list. Since there were sufficient vacancies in the quota set apart for physically challenged persons, he was included in it, so that one more student could be admitted in the general rural quota. In view of the submission of the second WA No.2263 of 2009 - 4 - respondent, it is clear that, first respondent was eligible to be included in the general rural quota. Therefore, he was entitled to be admitted in that quota. In view of the above position, we direct the appellants that the first respondent shall be admitted in one of the vacancies now available in the third appellant's school. This shall be done irrespective of the quota in which the vacancy is available. The second respondent shall ratify the action of the third appellant notionally treating that the first respondent is included in the general rural quota. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)