Priority In Admission To Kendriya Vidyalaya Not A Vested Right: Karnataka HC Declines Plea By Students Seeking 'Grandparents Sponsoring Quota'
Mustafa Plumber
14 Nov 2024 12:00 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court has said that priority in admission to school cannot be construed to be a vested right and priority provided in the previous academic year cannot be enforced as a legal right for continuation of such quota.
A Division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by grandchildren of serving/retired employees of Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
The appellants had questioned the single judge bench order which had rejected their petition seeking preference in admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya, for the academic year 2024-2025, under "Grandparents Sponsoring Quota" which was not made available this year.
The appellants had argued that guidelines for admission provide for priorities in admission. Clause 3(B)6 provides priority in admission to the children when not covered under any specific categories. It is submitted that the grandchildren of serving/retired employees are provided preference in the guidelines governing the earlier academic years, and the case attracts the residuary clause. Moreover, the guidelines for the academic year 2023-2024 provided preference in admission.
Union of India opposed the plea saying priorities are provided with an object to cater for the educational needs of children of transferable Central Government employees and other objectives. They are based on the advice of the Board of Governors, consisting of eminent educationists and administrators from all over the country and it is a matter of policy.
Further, the priority in admission cannot be claimed as a matter of vested right and the quota cannot be extended when such priority is not provided in the guidelines issued for the year 2024-2025.
On going through the records the court said, “When such a preference is specifically not provided in the guidelines 2024-2025, which governs the admission process for the academic year 2024-2025, the admission of the appellants cannot be considered as per guidelines 2023-2024.”
Rejecting the contention of appellants that such preference was available in the previous year, it said, “When preference was expressly provided in the earlier year guidelines and such preference is conspicuously absent in the guidelines 2024-2025, the reading of the preferences in the passion as suggested by the appellants is not permissible, that too in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent authorities that the quota for grandchildren is not intended nor provided for.”
Noting that appellants have not raised a challenge to guidelines 2024-2025, Court said “The exclusion of preference for grandchildren can neither be faulted nor interfered with by the Court.”
Dismissing the appeal the court said “In light of the change of priorities in the guidelines 2024-2025 and the sound and well-acceptable reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, no error can be booked to interfere with the order.”
Appearance: Advocate Srikanth M P for Appellants.
Deputy Solicitor General of India Shanthi Bhushan H for R1.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
Case Title: Master Shamant P & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No. 1305 OF 2024
