IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7407 of 2008 VIKAS KUMAR & ORS Versus JAWAHAR NAVODAY VIDYALAYA &ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Resp. 1 to 3 : Mr Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : GP VI. ------ 2. 28.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 as also the learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners who are minor children represented by their respective guardians are before this Court seeking admission to Class VI in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Arwal in the District of Jehanabad. Navodaya Vidyalayas have been established in each district of Bihar. For admission to the Vidyalaya at Arwal a competitive examination was held on 11.2.2007. The petitioners applied and were permitted to appear at the said examination and succeeded when the results were declared on 18.5.2007. Of the 40 seats available for admission ultimately only 13 secured admission when rest of the seats remained vacant. On 9.11.2007 the petitioners were required to submit their testimonials when ultimately on 25.2.2008 they were made aware of a communication issued by the respondent no. 3 to the District Education Officer Arwal that the petitioners could not be granted admission as they were not permanent residents of the District. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the prospectus issued for admission there was no requirement for the applicant to be a permanent resident of the District. That the petitioners had duly submitted proof of their having completed Class V studies 2 from one of the category of schools classified in Item ‘Kha’ of the prospectus from the District of Arwal in proof of their residence in the District. The denial of admission to them was therefore illegal. Lastly it was urged that the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as in other Districts, admission had been granted in similar circumstances. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 urged that the Vidyalayas have been set up district-wise. For that reason admission was confined to permanent residents of the district only. To grant admission to permanent residents of one district in another district would be against the principles of the prospectus of the Vidyalaya. In any event the prospectus itself clarified that mere success in the examination was not a guarantee for admission and that if at any stage it was found that any wrong information had been furnished the admission could be denied. This Court finds it difficult to accept the submission of the respondents 1 to 3 that the admission was confined to the Vidyalaya at Arwal to permanent residents of the district of Jehanabad only. On a bare reading of Clause ‘Ka’ of the prospectus what transpires is that applicants must be a resident of the district. This requirement is further reflected in Clause ‘Kha’ when it stipulated that the candidates must bring certification of completion of course from one of the schools specified from the same very district. All that the prospectus required was that the persons must be resident of the district as certified from his educational document. At this stage it is not necessary to go into the 3 larger question as to whether such a condition restricting admission to residents of the district only could be imposed or not and whether it could be constitutionally valid. This Court therefore holds that the prospectus only required that the person must be a resident of the district. The prospectus did not stipulate that the applicant must be permanent resident of the district. The petitioners undoubtedly fulfilled the condition of being a resident of the district inasmuch as they have been pursuing their studies at Arwal in the district of Jehanabad staying with a relative or another. Satisfied with the aspect of their residence in the district of Jehanabad communication of provisional selection was also sent to the petitioners by the Vidyalaya after having permitted them to appear at the selection examination. The petitioners in their applications made no concealment and clearly stated their permanent residence as also residence in the District Jehanabad at Arawal. That the respondents themselves never intended to restrict admission to the permanent residents of a district alone is further supported by submission of the petitioners from their supplementary affidavit where at Annexure 5 series by which permanent residents of one district have been granted admission in another district, where they have disclosed their residence which may have been temporary in nature but fulfilled the requirement in Clause ‘Kha’ of the prospectus as noticed above. Respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit has not denied the same but have simply stated that they were not in a position to deal with admission granted in Vidyalaya in other districts. Quite obviously there cannot be different yardsticks being followed by the Vidyalayas in different districts at their whims and fancy. The 4 petitioners have cited instances where permanent residents of Munger and Patna have been granted admission at Nawadah, Bhojpur and Gaya. The petitioners have therefore been subjected to hostile discrimination. The next issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the nature of the relief to be granted to the petitioners inasmuch as that now the academic session for Class VI has already ended in March 2008. At this stage it is relevant to take notice of the dates of development as noticed initially in this order as admissions were being granted and process of admission continued much after the academic session commenced in March 2007 as this was the first session of the Vidyalaya at Arwal for which admissions were being taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioners on instruction submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to join in Class VI in the next academic session. This Court has already noticed that they had competed in the qualifying examination and have been wrongly denied admission by subjecting them to hostile discrimination. This Court therefore directs respondents 1 to 3 to grant admission to the petitioners for the Session commencing from April 2008 in Class VI, if necessary by restricting admission for the next session so that the petitioners are not allowed to suffer for what are essentially lapses of the respondents themselves. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 5