Children Are Not Toys At Administrators' Mercy, Revising Kendriya Vidyalaya Guidelines After Commencement Of Admission Process Arbitrary: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Thursday ruled that the decision taken by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) to revise and alter the admission guidelines for Kendriya Vidyalayas after the admission process had already started, is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and not taken in public interest.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. added that while the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) may be laudable when adopting and implementing such policies, the State ought to have been careful not to trample upon the rights of minor children while striving to uphold the rights of others.

"While revising the admission guidelines, the respondents ought to have been fair and they should have ensured that students like the petitioners, who were legitimately expecting that they would secure admission, were not thrown out. Children are not chattels or toys to be thrown around at the mercy of the administrators. Every action taken by the authorities having an adverse effect on a section of children ought to have been taken cautiously and with all the sensitivity that it deserves."

Two young children aged 6 and 7 years respectively had approached this Court challenging the action of KVS in declining admission to them based on revised guidelines issued after the admission process had commenced. 

In February 2022, KVS came out with revised guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the academic year 2022-2023 onwards. Part B of the guidelines contains a special provision for admission, Clause 1 of which states that the 21 categories of children detailed therein would be admitted over and above the class strength except otherwise stated.

As per Clause (xvii), the Chairman of the Vidyalaya Management Committee is entitled to recommend a maximum of two admissions. One of the petitioners was granted a recommendatory letter by the Chairman. The other petitioner was allotted a student ID from a KV and she had purchased textbooks and uniforms as well. However, they were both denied admission later on citing changes in the revised guidelines. 

Advocate Amit Krishnan appearing for one of the petitioners submitted that the child had applied for admission in the KV in tune with the guidelines for admission which was operative then and had a legitimate expectation that he would secure admission. Abruptly and without any previous notice, he was informed that the guidelines which were prevalent at the time of online registration have been changed and the quota has been taken away. It was argued that there was no justification on the part of the respondents to alter the basis of admission after the admission process has started and that being a public authority, they were bound by the admission guidelines. 

Advocate George T.J appearing for the other petitioner supported these arguments and added that the prerogative of the executive is subject to the rule of law and fairness in state action embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, ASGI S. Manu contended that necessary amendments were carried out in the admission guidelines to align it with NEP 2020. When the discretionary quota admission was becoming a serious concern stretching the class strength which was adversely impacting the learning of the students, KVS undertook a review of its admission scheme, it was argued. The ASG added that the protection of any such legitimate expectation would not require the fulfilment of the expectation wherein overriding public interest requires otherwise. 

The Court perused the records and noted that it was after the close of online registration that the revised KVS guidelines were issued consequent to which the petitioners were informed that their admissions cannot be processed and they cannot be permitted to remit the fee.

The Judge found that it may be right that admissions over and above the class strength were discontinued in certain categories to implement NEP and to prevent overcrowding in classrooms. However, it was held that while coming up with the revised guidelines, the respondents ought to have reminded themselves that students like the petitioners had applied for admission and they were waiting on the premise that they would secure admission.

In Major Saurabh Charan & Ors. v. Lieutenant Governor, NCT, the Apex Court held that the action of the respondents in taking away the admission by a subsequent notification issued mid-session cannot be sustained. In this case, the respondents had changed the admission criteria after closure of the online registration, thus depriving the petitioners of their admission.

Further, the Court found merit in the submission of the petitioners that the children may have had a legitimate expectation that they would be granted admission in accordance with the extant guidelines.

"The children would have legitimately expected the respondents to act fairly. The expectation of the children was legitimate and their interest has to be protected by all means. As held by the Apex Court in Major Sourabh Charan (supra), it was not permissible for the respondents to alter the basis of admission after the admission process had started to the disadvantage of the petitioners. I have no doubt in my mind that the decision taken by the respondents to change the admission guidelines after the process had started, is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and not taken in public interest."

It was also found that the contention of the ASG that overriding public interest necessitates that the guidelines issued in terms of the NEP be upheld, cannot be accepted. The Court noted that the State functionaries are expected to act fairly and reasonably. The State ought to have exercised its power for proper and not improper purposes, the Judge added.

"Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use the hallowed phrase "that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done" is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities."

The Court added that it was improper on part of the State to have overlooked the Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution while revising its guidelines. 

"Education is perhaps the most important function of the State and it is with proper education that the child is awakened to cultural values. All that the respondents had to do was to ensure that the interests of the petitioners are also protected while bringing about sweeping changes. Under no circumstances could the State have ignored Article 21A of the Constitution or the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009."

Therefore, the Court declared that the action on the part of the respondents in altering the rules and guidelines governing admission after the procedure for admission for the academic year has commenced was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Therefore, the petitions were allowed and the respondents were directed to admit the petitioners in the respective Kendriya Vidyalaya.

Case Title: Dhruv Sai Kiran v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 273

Click Here To Read/Download The Order