IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9985 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.KARTHIKEYAN, (MINOR), 5 YEARS OF AGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS FATHER AND GUARDIAN S.KUMARESAN, C.S.P. NIVAS, 7/490, RAILWAY COLONY, REJENDERA THEATRE COMPOUND KALLEKULANGARA.P.O. PALAKKAD-678009, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENS: --------------- 1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, 18, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110016, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ,KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, REGIONAL OFFICE, ADAYAR, CHENNAI. PIN-600020. 3. CHAIRMAN, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO.1, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, OLAVAKKOD, PALAKKAD-678009. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALALA NO.1, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, OLAVAKKOD, PALAKKAD-678009. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9985 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 31st May , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a minor child aged 5 years represented by his father has approached this Court seeking for admission to the first standard in the Kendriya Vidyalaya at Olavakkode in Palakkad district, which is stated as denied and hence under challenge. Many a ground has been raised in the writ petition, factual and legal, also stating that the course pursued by the respondents is totally alien to the scheme of admission. 2. In response to the averments raised in the writ petition, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. followed by an additional counter affidavit (in answer to the averments raised in the reply affidavit of the petitioner). The crux of the contentions raised by the respondents is that the admissions have been made strictly in tune with the relevant norms/guidelines and that the allegation to the contrary is quite wrong and unfounded. It is stated that the category to which the petitioner belongs is having only a total of 'four' seats, out of 164 seats, to be distributed in W.P.(C) No. 9985 OF 2011 2 four classes of the first standard. It is also stated that the four seats earmarked to the weaker section, as above, have been filled by drawing 'lot' on 23.03.2011, in presence of the Committee consisting of five members as described in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. The course pursued by the respondents in granting admission has been well explained in the counter affidavit, which appears to be correct and sustainable. It is stated in paragraph 9 that there is no vacancy in the seats earmarked to OBC and economically weaker section and as such, no positive relief could be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the petitioner is ready to wait, if any vacancy will arise. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that among the reserved seats, 12 are to be filled by ST candidates, 24 by SC candidates and 4 by OBC and economically backward candidates (as applicable to the case in hand). Among the 12 seats earmarked to ST, 'nine' are vacant, while all the 24 seats earmarked to SC stand filled up, leaving 24 students in the waiting list. Similarly, in respect of the category to which the W.P.(C) No. 9985 OF 2011 3 petitioner belongs, there are several students in the waiting list. As per the guidelines, the respondents will have to wait till 31.07.2011 to ascertain whether any student belonging to2 ST category intends to join in any of the earmarked vacancy, to be accommodated accordingly. If the vacancies are still there, the same are to be filled up by considering the candidates belonging to SC category, who are placed in the waiting list and if vacancies are still there, the same could be extended to the OBC and weaker section. 4. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that no positive relief can be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to fill up the vacancies if arise, in accordance with the relevant norms. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk