Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poorvi Gawhade vs Kendriya Vidyalay Sangthan (Kvs) on 22 February, 2021
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1 WP-12712-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-12712-2020
(POORVI GAWHADE Vs KENDRIYA VIDYALAY SANGTHAN (KVS) AND OTHERS)
7
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-02-2021
Shri Brindavan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-a minor through her father, Mr. Surendra Gawhade, whereby he is distressed by the intimation dated 25-08-2020 ( Annexure P/6) issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, whereby his request for changing the address of residence subsequent to having submitted the application form was turned down on the ground that in an online form, once it is filled and send, there is no provision for a subsequent amendment.
The petitioner has sought admission in Class-I, under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009( hereinafter referred to as the "RTE Act, 2009'') and had applied for the same in the respondent No. 3 Institution at Bihpur. The petitioner resides at Multai, which is 42 kms from the institution. In the lots drawn, she was at No. 8 but, however, on account of her place of residence which is 42 kms away, she could not be given admission in the light of guidelines issued by the Kendriya Vidyalays Sangathan for admitting children under RTE Act, 2009 which defines neighborhood as a place of residence, which is within the radius of 5 kms, in all district headquarters and metros and 8 kms in places and areas not being the district headquarters and metros. As the petitioner did not meet the said requirement, she was not considered for admission in Class-I. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 2(c) of RTE Act, 2009 which defines a child, which could be a male or female child between the age group of 6-14 years. Thereafter, he has referred to Section 12(1)(c) dealing with the school's responsibility to offer free and compulsory Signature Not Verified SAN education, which requires school to admit in Class-I to the extent of at least Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE Date: 2021.02.24 11:02:59 IST 2 WP-12712-2020 25% of the strength of that class of children belonging to the weaker sections and disadvantageous groups in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory and elementary education till its completion. He has also referred to Section 6 of the Act, which speaks the duty of the appropriate government and local authority to establish school for carrying out the provision of the Act within such areas or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Act. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to page-11 of the reply filed by the respondents- Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, in which, the respondents has submitted that steps are being taken by the government to open the schools within such areas or limits of neighbourhood subject to fulfillment of norms prescribed for the opening of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan.
Lastly, it refers to page No.-30 of the reply, which is office order of the Ministry of Human Resource and Development addressed to the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Delhi whereby the Central Govt. has granted permission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan to define neighbourhood for implementing the provisions of Clause (c) of Section (1) of Section 12 of RTE Act, 2009 which as mentioned hereinabove has been included in the guidelines of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he should be allowed to correct his place of residence as an uncle of the petitioner resides at Betul within a radius of 5 kms from the school in question. As stated earlier hereinabove, that request was turned down by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan on the grounds that there is no provision for amending the address, once given through the online mode.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is discriminatory in not allowing the children beyond 5 or 8 kms radius to seek admission, as that is not been the intent of the Act and goes against the very spirit of it is rejected as the purpose of the phrase 'neighbourhood' be used in 3 WP-12712-2020 Section 3 is only to clarify that the children have a right to seek admission in a school, which is closest to their point of residence. It would militate against the very purpose of the Act, if the children who come within the category of 25% are allowed to seek admission by draw of lots in the areas far away from their neighbourhood as that would hamper the chances of children from the same sections of the society, who are in the immediate neighbourhood of such schools.
As regards reference to Section 6 of the Act is concerned, undoubtedly, there is an obligation on the State to open schools in the neighbourhoods where there are no schools. However, the discretion of when and where, is exclusively left with the Executive. The Executive shall decide the same taking into account the resources available with it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied the fact that the child may be studying in her neighbourhood presently. Section 3 of RTE Act, carves out a right of every child between the age of 6-14 years to have free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school. The Act itself specifies that what is a right under the Act, is right to education and not a right to education in a specific school. In order to ensure that there is equitable distribution of opportunity of education to all children, the said provision makes a conscious mention of "neighbourhood school''. The act does not define what a neighbourhood school is but, however, the guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan does. The Act sought to ensure that the child born into the weaker sections of society had access to education without traveling great distances or in other words, within its neighbourhood itself.
Under the circumstances, the children belonging to the said sections of the society, undoubtedly, would have a right to be considered for admission even in a private school within its neighbourhood subject to other requirements under the law.
In the present case, the contention of the learned counsel the petitioner 4 WP-12712-2020 that the form only provided for a permanent address and not the present address and therefore, he should be allowed to change it.
Having gone through the said form, it only asks for the residential address and not the permanent address. The residence of a person is a abode where he resides presently. The said form does not make out a distinction between a permanent or local. Under the circumstances, the reason for rejecting the application for amendment given by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary, as all admissions to Class-I were only through online mode.
However, the petitioner herein can always try to seek admission in the school in question from Class-2 onwards by showing her residence to be within 5 kms from Kendriya Vidyalaya Betul, which address could be verifiable by the school.
The respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner if she is succeeds in the lottery subject to the procedure and other requirements of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
With the above, this petition stands disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE PG