# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WA NO. 1117 OF 2023**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15955/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 2.6.2023**
## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:**
1 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER, 8, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDHYALAYA SANKATHAN, ERNAKULAM REGION, REGIONAL OFFICE, IGH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682020 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDHYALAYA SANKATHAN, ERNAKULAM REGION, REGIONAL OFFICE, IGH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682020 4 THE PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDHYALAYA ERNAKULAM, KADAVANTHARA, IGH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682020 BY ADVS. K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER T.K.SREEKALA VINEETH KOMALACHANDRAN S.PARVATHI UTHARA ASOKAN
## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:**
MUHAMMED SINAN ATEEQ B.A. AGED 6 YEARS(MINOR) S/O ABDURAHIMAN ASLAD B.M.,
WA NO.1117 of 2023
2
SHABANA BABU MANZIL, BANGARAKUNNU, NELLIKUNNU, KASARAGODE P.O., KASARAGODE , PIN - 671121, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. II J, TOWER 2, D D PLATINUM PLANET, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682017, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN ABDURAHIMAN ASLAD B.M., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O MAMOO, SHABANA BABU MANZIL, BANGARAKUNNU, NELLIKUNNU, KASARAGODE P.O., KASARAGODE, PIN - 671121 BY ADV R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
WA NO.1117 of 2023
3
## **A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** , JJ
…...................................................
## **WA No.1117 of 2023**
…............................................................. Dated this the 14th day of June, 2023
## **JUDGMENT**
Mohammed Nias.C.P., J
This writ appeal is preferred by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and its officials, including the principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam, challenging the judgment dated 2.6.2023 in WP(C)No.15955 of 2023, that directed the appellants to admit the minor petitioner in the first standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kadavanthara,Ernakulam
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-
The petitioner had submitted an application for Std.1 in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam, as seen from Ext.P1. The address of the parents of the petitioner, hailing from Kasargode District, and the petitioner's Birth Certificate showed a permanent address in Kasargode. However, it is submitted that the father of the petitioner is doing business at Convent Junction in Ernakulam District, and his family is living in a flat taken on rent at Kaloor as per Ext.P3 rent agreement. At the time of submitting
WA NO.1117 of 2023
4
Ext.P1 application for admission, the petitioner's Adhar card had the residential address at Kasargode, and subsequently, the principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya informed that the petitioner might not get admission, as per the relevant norms since he is not residing within a distance of 10 Kms from the school. Accordingly, the petitioner's Adhar card was updated by incorporating his present residential address at Kaloor, Ernakulam, as is seen from Ext.P4. The appellants also provisionally selected the petitioner for admission, and he was included in the provisionally selected list of candidates published by the 4[th] respondent in the school's notice board as seen from Ext.P5. Notwithstanding the above, the 4[th] respondent, on the ground that the address shown at the time of registration and the first certificate produced later varied, denied admission. The appellants filed a statement before the learned single Judge contending that the address submitted by the parent while submitting the application form was the Kasargode address. But, at the same time, he had shown the distance to the school from his residence as less than 5 kms. When this discrepancy was noticed, an E-mail was sent on 12.4.2023, Ext.R2(a), to correct the mistakes, if any. The appellants submit that there was no response from the parent side to cancel the application. Thus, the appellants contended that the mismatch in the residential address, as shown above, has led to the denial of admission of the candidate. However, it is admitted in the statement that the parent had submitted the changed address to the school at a later date when
WA NO.1117 of 2023
5
they called for verification of documents on getting selected provisionally for admission.
3. Learned Single Judge, who considered the matter found that the objections raised on behalf of the appellants were technicalities and that it was an admitted fact that the Adhar card of the petitioner was already updated and the application also indicated the documents were to be produced when the admission is being offered which included proof of date of Birth of the child, a photograph of the child and proof of residence. Learned single Judge found that admittedly the writ petitioner had the proof of address at the time admission was to be made, and therefore the denial of admission was illegal and accordingly directed the appellants to accommodate by giving him an additional seat in the school, particularly, in the light of Ext.P5 where the child was already offered a seat provisionally. It is the said judgment that is impugned before us.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the contentions taken in the statement before the learned single Judge. They submitted that the only reason for denying admission was that the parent did not show the Ernakulam address in the registration form and the Adhar card was updated, and proof of the local address was given only later at the time of offering admission. It is pertinent to note that going by the instructions stipulated by the appellants, it is clear that the writ
WA NO.1117 of 2023
6
petitioner had to produce the updated Adhar card showing the address at the time of admission, more so when the candidate was provisionally selected as per Ext.P5. In such circumstances, the stand of the appellants that the discrepancy in the two addresses is the reason to deny the admission cannot be accepted. The petitioner was never found to be ineligible, and far from that, he was provisionally selected as per Ext.P5. If mentioning the Kasargode address was fatal, the petitioner should not have been included in the list of provisionally selected candidates. That apart, we find that by Ext.P4, the Adhar details of the child were corrected and updated. There is no case for the appellants that the documents produced on behalf of the minor child were not genuine or created for the purposes of admission. It cannot be so, as the petitioner's father had started a business in Kochi, and the lease deed evidencing the rental agreement with respect to his office is dated 10.6.2016, even before his son's birth on 2.9.2016. The relevant prescription in the instructions produced along with the counter-statement reads as follows:-
“9. Details provided at the time of registration cannot be subsequently changed in the admission form. Please enter these details correctly and exactly as per documentary evidence (like birth certificate) available with him.”
It clearly showed that since the permanent address in the Adhar card originally showed the Kasargode address, they could not have shown the
WA NO.1117 of 2023
7
Kochi address without the Adhar being updated. That apart, as per clause 22, which reads thus:
“In case provisional admission is given by a Vidyalaya after the results are announced, originals of all supporting documents listed while submitting the form must be presented to the concerned Vidyalaya at the time of admission. Failure to provide these original documents may lead to the admission being canceled.”
5. The above also shows that at the time of admission and after the publishing of Ext.P5 list of provisional selection, proof of the relevant documents could be accepted. So, as per Clause 22, the reason for cancellation of admission cannot be sustained. Reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh in WP(C)No.12712 of 2020 ( **Poorvi Gawhede v.**
**Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and others** ) is again misplaced as the said case pertains to a request for correction of the place of residence as that of the uncle of the petitioner who was residing within a radius of 5 km from school, whereas, the original distance shown in the application form was 42 km. It was on the said reasoning that admission was declined. The said judgment also noted that there was only a single column in the application for writing the address that did not differentiate between permanent and present addresses. In the instant case going by the stipulations, the candidate had every right to produce his proof of address at the time of verification of the documents at the time of admission, and admittedly, the updated Adhar card showing the local address was available with the petitioner, after publishing Ext.P5
WA NO.1117 of 2023
8
provisional selection list. For these reasons and for the reasons given by the learned single Judge, we do not think that the directions in the impugned judgment warrant interference.
6. At the time of admission, we had passed the following order:
“Post on 14.6.2023 for the learned Standing counsel for the appellant to ascertain whether the respondent student can be accommodated in Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), Kadavanthra, by making available a seat therein under any quota, as also consequent to the transfer of any student of Class I in that school to another Kendriya Vidyalaya within Ernakulam station. The aforesaid instructions are required urgently since _prima facie_ we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and we are told that classes are set to commence shortly at the school.”
7. In response, the appellants had produced a list, which shows that the permitted seats in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam, was 160, whereas 182 admissions are already given and that there are no vacancies available at Kendriya Vidyalaya. At this distance of time, though we feel that the petitioner was entitled to be given admission, we do not want to disturb any other admissions given, particularly because the admissions in the instant case pertain to Class 1, as otherwise, the impleadment of those candidates who ranked below the petitioner was necessary. To avoid all those difficulties, we feel that the directions given by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment meet the ends of
WA NO.1117 of 2023
9
justice. There are no grounds made out to interfere with the judgment impugned in an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.
Writ appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
**Sd/- A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE**
Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.**
**JUDGE**
dlk/15.6.2023
