Karnataka High Court
Yashavanth R vs The Principal on 10 November, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.33304 OF 2019 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.41774 OF 2019 (EDN-RES)
IN W.P.NO.33304 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
YASHAVANTH R
S/O. D. S. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER,
D. S. RAMACHANDRA,
S/O SANNATHAMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT DIDDAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSUR POST,.
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT- 67.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRATHEEP.K.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL
JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA,
SHIVARAGUDDA,
MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 419.
2. DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE & DEVELOPMENT,
SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJULADEVU R.KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. V.NARASIMHA HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.06.2019 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED
BY THE R-1 REJECTING THE ADMISSION OF PETITIONER TO
CLASS VI.
IN W.P.NO.41774 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SHREYA S.GOWDA
D/O SURESH K. K.,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
R/AT NO.KATTEKAYTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI,
K .R. PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605.
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED
BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER
SURESH K. K.
S/O LATE KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT KATTEKAYTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI,
K. R. PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESORUCES DEVELOPMENT,
(DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY),
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. NAVODAYA VIDAYALA SAMITI,
HEAD QUARTERS,
AUTONOMOUS ORGANIZATION
UNDER UNION MINISTRY OF HRD,
(DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY),
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
3
B-15 INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
SECTOR 62, NOIDA,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201 307.
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. NAVODAYA VIDYALA SAMITHI (HYDERABAD REGION)
NAIAGANDLA ROAD, GOPANPALLY,
RANGAREDDY DISTRICT,
HYDERABAD-500 107
REPRESENTED BY ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER (ACAD)
4. THE PRINCIPAL
JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
SHIVARAGUDDA,
SHIVALLI POST,
MANDYA -571 405.
5. YESHWANTH. R
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
FATHERS NAME: NOT KNOWN
C/O JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA
MANDYA DISTRICT,
SHIVARAGUDDA,
SHIVALLI POST,
MANDYA-571 405.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHANDRACHUD, CGC FOR R1;
SRI.V.NARASIMHA HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4;
R5-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMUNICTION DATED 22.08.2019 PASSED BY R-3 IN LETTER
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
In W.P.No.33304/2019 petitioner is knocking at the doors of the writ court for laying a challenge to the endorsement dated 11.06.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D, whereby the 1st respondent has denied admission to VI standard for the academic year 2019-2020; the same reads as under:
"Your ward Kum./Master Yashwanth .R bearing roll No.11595895 has been selected provisionally for admission to class VI in JNV Mandya for the session 2019-20. On verification of documents on 06.06.2019, it was found that your son studied Class V in two districts i.e. at Kodagu and Mandya. As per NVS prospectus eligibility criteria, "4.3 A candidate appearing for the selection test must be studying in Class-V for the whole of the academic session 2018-19 in a Government /Government aided or other recognized schools. Hence your ward selection for admission to class VI is rejected."
2. In connected case in W.P.No.41774/2019 the challenge is to the endorsement dated 22.08.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent-School, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the claim for admission of the petitioner for VI standard in the 4th respondent-School is kept in abeyance pending clarification as to the sustainability of the claim of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, who happens to 5 be 5th respondent in this writ petition; the said endorsement reads as under:
"Sub: Class VI JNVT-2019 Clarification for operation of Wait List-1-reg.
Sir, I am directed to refer your letter dated 19.6.2019 and to convey approval of the competent authority at NVS Hqrs permitting JNV to operate the wait list-1 against the available four (04) vacancies in JNV as on date.
However, one(01) vacancy may be kept in abeyance For this purpose, the candidature of Kum. Shreya S Gowda, Provisionally selected for admission into class VI through Wait list-1 dated 25.7.2019 may kindly be kept in abeyance till the discrepancy of admission of Mas., Yashwanth R is resolved.
With respect to the admission of Mas. Yashwanth.R(VIP Reference case), it is desired by the competent authority at NVS Hqrs to verify the details of student who is provisionally selected but not eligible as per NVS admission policy. A report may be submitted about the antecedents and circumstances leading to the candidate study in class V in two different districts. This matter may be treated as urgent and most important to resolve the discrepancy.
This is for your information and necessary action."
3. The contesting respondents having entered appearance after notice, through their counsel resist the writ petitions making submission in justification of the impugned 6 endorsements, more particularly drawing attention of the court to paragraph 4.3 of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme which in principle requires that the aspirant for admission should be from a school in a district in which the Navodaya School in question is also situate.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in both the writ petitions as under and for the following reasons:
(a) Relevant part of paragraph 4.3 of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme reads as under:
"A candidate appearing for the selection test must be studying in Class-V for the whole of the academic session 2018-19 in a Government/Government aided or other recognized schools or 'B' certificate competency course of National Institute of Open Schooling in the same district where he/she is seeking admission...."
The pith & substance of this paragraph is that the admission aspirant of the Navodaya School should have completed both the 1st term and 2nd term of the academic year of V standard in the same district wherein the said Navodaya school is located; in other words if he has studied the 1st term of the 7 standard in a school in Kodagu district and the 2nd term of the said standard in a school in another district, he is not eligible for applying for the seat; thus a student who went to another school for a cup of days in the first term does not ipso facto become ineligible; such a norm/guideline needs to be construed on the principle of purposive interpretation and not literal.
(b) The impugned endorsement dated 11.06.2019 at Annexure-D to W.P.No.33304/2019 denying admission to the petitioner, is structured on a wrong premise that he had studied his V standard in two different districts namely Kodagu & Mandya; admittedly petitioner studied till IV standard in Siddapur in Kodagu/Madikeri district; he was promoted to V standard vide Achievement Record at Annexure-F; he studied his V standard at Government Higher Primary School at Singanahalli which is in Mandya District as is evidenced by the School Transfer Certificate at Annexure-H and the Marks Statement of the V standard at Annexure-J, both issued by issued by the Head Master of the school; the fact that petitioner was in the Siddapur school in 8 Kodagu for 23 days thus pales into insignificance, in view of fresh admission to the other school.
(c) The claim for admission of the petitioner in W.P.No.41774/2019 was placed in abeyance because of the pendency of claim of the petitioner in the companion writ petition in which direction is being issued for admitting the student for the next academic year i.e., 2021-2022 and therefore there is absolutely no impediment for confirming the admission of the student in W.P.No.41774/2019 since he has been provisionally admitted to the respondent-Navodaya School for the current academic year; disturbing him otherwise also is not in the best interest of the student.
(d) There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the Navodaya School that the petitioner in W.P.No.33304/2019 cannot be admitted to Navodaya School for the current academic year since the course is already half way through and therefore he may be admitted to the course for the next academic year. However, his contention that the admission of the said petitioner even for the next academic year would affect reservation or the like, is bit difficult to 9 countenance since that is not the ground on which the impugned endorsement is founded; the Apex Court in MOHINDAR SINGH GILL AND ANOTHER vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI & OTHERS 1978 AIR 851 has held that the validity of an order made by a public authority has to be examined on the reasons stated therein and not those supplemented by way of pleadings after the case travels to the court.
In the above circumstances, both the writ petitions having been favoured, both the endorsements are set at naught; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents 2, 3 & 4 in W.P.No.41774/2019 to confirm and regularize the admission of the student concerned; in W.P.No.33304/2019 a Writ of Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent to offer admission to the petitioner for the VI standard for the academic year 2021-2022.
Now, costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE DS