IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 1658 of 2008() --------------------- {IN WPC.15631/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE ORGANISING COMMISSIONER (GUIDES), KERALA STATE BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES, STATE HEAD QUARTERS, POST VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. STATE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES, STATE HEAD QUARTERS, POST VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND 1, 4 AND 5TH RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REEMA SALIM, S/O. P.P. MOHAMMED SALIM, SHAZ, NEAR G.H.S, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD.P.O, THRISSUR. 2. SUSAN N. JACOB, S/O.N.A. JACOB, NEELAMKAVIL HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM.P.O, MANGAD, THRISSUR. WA.No. 1658 of 2008 :: 2 :: 3. JOVEGA P. JOHNY, D/O. P.P. JOHYNY, PUTHUR HOUSE, KUNDANNUR.P.O, WADAKKANCHERY, ATTATHARA, THRISSUR. 4. ATHULYA.C.S, D/O. SANJEEVAN.C.S, CHENNAMKULANGARA HOUSE, NATTIKA.P.O, THRISSUR. 5. PRESSY.M.B, D/O. BABU.M.S, MAPRANATH HOUSE, VALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR. 6. PROMITHA GOURI.K.U, D/O. ULASS.K.C, KALOKKODUVATHU HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR. 7. DISNY DENNY.T, D/O. T.C. DENNY, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, THOZHIYOOR.P.O, ANJOOR (BAZAR), THRISSUR. 8. RINU GEEVER.P, D/O. GEEVER.I.P, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, PORKULAM.P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. 9. NITHYA ASOKAN, S/O. ASOKAN.N.K, NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, AKATHIYOOR.P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. 10. SWATHY SAGARAN.V, D/O.SAGARAN.V.S, VALIYAVALAPPIL.P.O, AKATHIYOOR.P.O, PAREMPADAM, THRISSUR. 11. LAKSHMI PRAKASH.A, D/O.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH, AZHUTHUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PORKULAM, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR. 12. ATHIRA.K.C, D/O. C. CHANDRAN, KURUPATHETHIL HOUSE, AKKIKAVU, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. WA.No. 1658 of 2008 :: 3 :: 13. ATHIRA T. VINOD, D/O. VINOD.T.M, THALLAPPULLI HOUSE, ANJOOR.P.O, CHERUVATHANI, THRISSUR. 14. DAYA DATH, D/O. SUNIL DATH, THALAPPILLY HOUSE, KIZHOOR.P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. 15. SANI JOHN, D/O. JOHN K. FRANCIS, PARAKKAL KUTTIKKATT HOUSE, THALAKKOTTUKARA.P.O, KECHERY, THRISSUR. 16. SIPPY JOHN, D/O.C.D. JOHNSON, CHIRAYATH MANJIYIL HOUSE, PUTTEKKARA, ANJOOR, MUNDUR, THRISSUR. 17. SWEDA.K.S, D/O. SIDHARTHAN.K.R, KOTHOTTIL HOUSE, CHOONDAL.P.O, AKHAMPADAM, THRISSUR. 18. MERIEJOE.C, D/O.JOHNSON THOMAS, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, MATTOM.P.O, THRISSUR. 19. CHITHRA BALAKRISHNAN, D/O. BALAKRISHNAN.E.K, KAINAYATH HOUSE, VAZHANI.P.O, VIRUPPAKKA, WADAKKANECHERY, THRISSUR. 20. NAVYA THOMAS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PANJAL.P.O, CHERUTHURUTHY VIA, THRISSUR. 21. ANJU FRANCO, D/O. E.K. FRANCO, ELUNATHINGAL HOUSE, VALAPAD.P.O. 22. LAKSHMY.V.P, D/O. PRAKASHAN.V.V, VELAMBATH HOUSE.P.O, CHENTHRAPPINNY. 23. ROSHNY.M.V, D/O.M.R. YATHEENDRAN, MAMBULLY HOUSE, EDAMUTTAM.P.O. 24. THASNI.P.A, D/O. AMEER.P.H, POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, CHOOLOR.P.O. WA.No. 1658 of 2008 :: 4 :: 25. SILPA SIBI, D/O. SIBI JOSEPH, MULAMTHURUTHI HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR. 26. THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER, BHARAT SCOUTS & GUIDES, NATIONAL HEAD QUARTERS, LAXMI MAZUMDAR, BHAVAN, 16, MAHATHMA GANDHI MARG, INDRAPRASATHA ESTATE, NEW DELHI-11002. 27. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (GIRL PROGRAMME), BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES, NATIONAL HEAD QUARTERS, LAXMI MAXUMDAR BHAVAN, 16, MAHATHMA GANDHI MARG, INDRAPRASATHA ESTATE, NEW DELHI-11002. 28. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (LEADER OF THE CAMP), SOUTHERN REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS, NO.39, PALACE ROAD, SHANIT GRUHA, BANGALORE. R1 TO 25 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL R26 & 27 SRI.C.A.NAVAS SRI.T.A.SHABEERALI SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR SMT.C.S.SIMI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH WA NO. 1739 OF 2008 WA NO. 2276 OF 2008 ON 26/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1658, 1739 & 2276 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT GIRI, J. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge, allowing the writ petitions filed by the contesting respondents. The writ petitioners, who are minors, aged 14, approached this court aggrieved by what they call as a 'pre-test' conducted by the appellants herein for eliminating the guides from the testing camp leading to the 'Rashtrapathi Guide Award'. The learned single Judge, on a comprehensive consideration of the contentions raised by the parties and with reference to the materials placed on record, upheld the challenge and allowed the writ petitions. It is aggrieved thereby that the present appeals have been filed. 2. We will refer to W.A.No.1658/08 and the consideration therein would govern the other appeals also. 3. The writ petitioners are girl guides studying in various schools in Kerala. They are qualified for National W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 2 :: Level Rashtrapathi Rank Examinations, which is the highest rank that can be achieved by a scout/guide in the National Level of Bharat Scouts and Guides. On successful completion, they will be awarded certificates signed by the President of India. Ext.P1 is the extract from the “Aims, Policy, Rules and Organisation of Bharath Scouts and Guides” {for short “the Rules”}, which lays down the guidelines relating to the award of Rashtrapathi Guide Award. Rule 18A thereof, which is the subject matter of dispute, reads as follows: “(i) The President of the Indian Union who is the Chief Patron of the Bharat Scouts and Guides, has been graciously pleased to authorise the issue of a special certificate to a Guide who earns the Rashtrapati Guide Award and has completed 14 years of age, after serving as a Rajya Puraskar Guide for at least twelve months.” 4. It could be taken as undisputed that the writ petitioners are holding the qualifications prescribed as above, i.e., to say, they have completed 14 years of age and they have been serving as a Rajya Puraskar Guide for almost W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 3 :: 11 months prior to them participating in the camp, which they hope, would lead to the Rashtrapathi Guide Award, as stated above. It is, therefore, that the writ petitioners affirm that the Rashtrapathi test camp is organised by the National Association. Upon successful completion of the camp, they are eligible for the Rashtrapathi Guide Award. 5. The dispute arose when the appellants herein were subjected to a pre-test, intended to screen out a sizable number of participants in the training camp. The pre-test was conducted in the beginning of the camp and finding that the appellants herein had not passed the pre- test, they were refused permission to continue their participation in the training camp, which ultimately would have led to the issuance of the Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate. It is at that juncture the writ petitioners have approached this court. 6. The respondents took up a contention that since the number of participants in the camp had increased considerably, it became necessary to adopt a preliminary screening method; that it is accordingly that test was W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 4 :: conducted that the writ petitioners have failed in the qualifying test and it is, therefore, that they were not permitted to continue with the training camp. The writ petitioners had participated in the test willingly and it seems that they had turned out to be unsuccessful. They have questioned the conduct of the test after they found themselves unsuccessful. 7. The learned single Judge upheld the challenge finding that, firstly the rules in question do not prescribe a 'preliminary screening test' as is alleged to have been done in the instant case. Rule 18 lays down the qualifications for a person to be awarded the 'Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate'. Beyond dispute, all the petitioners are eligible, in terms of Rule 18. If that be so, they should have been allowed to complete the training camp. It was further held that the plea of estoppel raised by the respondents in the writ petition was misconceived for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioners are young children aged 14 and it is too much to expect such youngsters to be aware of the rules relating to estoppel, which is applied with rigour in service W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 5 :: jurisprudence. Secondly, the test in question was not notified and therefore, the students, who have participated in the same, may be unaware of the possibility of an elimination at the end of the test. The learned single Judge found that there is no warrant or justification for eliminating the writ petitioners from the training camp and further found that the contesting respondents ought to have permitted the writ petitioners to complete the training camp so as to make them eligible for the award of Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed these appeals. 8. We heard learned counsel on both sides. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is nothing in the rules which prescribe the conduct of a screening test. This became necessary on account of the fact that a number of candidates participated in the camp. It is further contended that a circular was issued on 10.4.2008 (produced and marked as Annexure R26(A) by the Bharat Scouts and Guides National Headquarters in the form of instructions to the State Association of the Bharat Scouts and W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 6 :: Guides). Reference is made to Clause 3 of the said guidelines which reads as follows: “From one unit maximum 25% of the total strength of the unit i.e. 6 to 8 Scouts/Guide/Rover/Rangers as the case may be come eligible to the level of Rashtrapati Scout/Guide/Rover/Ranger in a year.” 10. On this basis, it is contended that the screening test is, therefore, contemplated as part of the regime. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the conduct of the test. It is on the subjective assessment of the participants that they were found eligible, either to continue with the training camp or found as ineligible to proceed further. The same cannot be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the training camp had commenced on 23.4.2008 and at no point of time, was there any announcement that a screening test would be conducted at the beginning. All the petitioners had completed 12 months as Rashtrapathi Guide and had completed 14 years of age. W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 7 :: The petitioners were participating in the last training camp and eligibility to participate in such training camp could not have been determined on the basis of a preliminary screening test. The decision taken in this regard by the appellants herein, it is contended, was completely arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 12. Having heard counsel on both sides, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. The qualifications for participating in a training camp leading to the issuance of Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate are those which are mentioned in Clause 18 of Ext.P1. It is not the case of the appellants herein that any one of the writ petitioners was not qualified in terms of Ext.P1 to participate in the training camp. Ext.P1 also does not make any provision for the conduct of a Preliminary Screening Test. In other words, the participants were qualified to participate in the training camp which could lead to the issuance of Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate, and the rules which regulated such training camp and issuance of Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate did not provide for the W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 8 :: conduct of any Preliminary Screening Test. If that be so, the weeding out of a substantial number of students from the training camp purportedly on the basis of a screening test, as such, was rightly found to be untenable by the learned single Judge. 13. We are of the further view that the reliance sought to be placed by the appellants on Annexure R26(A) letter dated 14.4.2008 is also misconceived. Firstly, Annexure R26(A) does not in terms provide for the conduct of a Preliminary Screening Test. Secondly, Annexure R26(A) is dated 10.4.2008 and it is seen to have been served on the State Secretaries, only on 23.4.2008. The training camp itself had commenced on 23.4.2008. There is no material on record to show that the participants had been apprised of the conduct of a Preliminary Screening Test at the beginning of the training camp. If that be so, then obviously the conduct of such Screening Test is not only not authorised by the rules, but otherwise unjustified. 14. We are also in agreement by the submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 9 :: question of estoppel really cannot be raised as against the minor children, especially when the procedure hitherto followed did not provide for the holding of any screening test as a measure of determining the eligibility to continue participation in the training camp. 15. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in these writ appeals and we are of the firm view that it is liable to be dismissed. It is made clear that since the appellants have not allowed the writ petitioners to continue the participation in the training camp which was held in 2008, they are bound to take such steps as are necessary to see that the writ petitioners are permitted to participate in the training camp, which is held for the purpose of issuance of Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate - such participation shall be ensured in the training camp held at any suitable place, after the writ petitioners complete the board examinations, which they are to give this year. The writ petitioners should be permitted to participate in the training camp in full and should not be subjected to any screening test. But, we make it clear that if the appellants want to conduct any screening W.A.No.1658 of 2008 & con. cases :: 10 :: test (for students other than the writ petitioners) from the year 2009 onwards, they are at liberty to do so, subject to the condition that adequate notice be given in this regard to the participants in such training camp, leading to the issuance of Rashtrapathi Guide Certificate. Subject to the above clarification, the writ appeals are dismissed. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge