Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sg) Suresh Singh vs The Union Of India And Another on 11 November, 2016
Author: Sahidullah Munshi
Bench: Sahidullah Munshi
11.11.2016 W.P. No. 18225 (W) of 2016
(66)
(sg) Suresh Singh
Vs.
The Union of India and another
Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder
.. for the petitioner
Mr. Rabindra Nath Bag,
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhowmik,
Ms. Payel Bag
.. for the respondent no.2
The present writ petitioner claims to be an unapproved 4th Class staff of Alipore Takshal Vidyapith (Higher Secondary) Unit-II, Indin Government Mint Colony. The petitioner applied for admission of his son Sri Ankush Singh in Class-I and for that purpose application was made to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Garden Reach on 21st February, 2015 for the academic session 2015-16. Since the petitioner's son was not considered for admission, the authority communicated the reasons as to why the petitioner's son could not be admitted in the said school. A writ petition was filed earlier being W.P. 5835 (W) of 2016. The said writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 1st April, 2016 by one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court whereby the concerned school authority was directed to take steps for granting admission of the petitioner's son to Class-I in the said school after fulfilling all the requisite criteria by the petitioner. After the said order was passed, the petitioner again applied for admission of his son for Class-I in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Garden Reach on 5th March, 2016.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of submitting all the documents the school authority did not admit the petitioner's son for Class-I for the academic session 2016-17. By filing the present writ petition the petitioner had challenged a letter dated 22nd August, 2016 and prayed for quashing of the same on the ground that although no lottery was held in making selection of candidates, the respondent/school authority communicated under their letter dated 22nd August, 2016 that draw of lottery was conducted for admission to Class-I for RTE and single girl child in the first phase for selection of 30 children (10 for each section out of 200 candidates under Right to Education Act). It has been communicated by the respondent/school authority that the petitioner's son was also included in the draw of lottery since he belongs to OBC category but his name was not recorded in the draw of lottery in the first phase for RTE as well as in the second phase for Category No.V. After hearing Mr. Bidyut Kumar Halder, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and after considering the specific pleadings at paragraph 13 of the writ petition that no lottery was ever held in the said school for selection of students for admission for Class-I for the session 2016-17, this Court passed an Order on 5th Se ptember, 2016 directing the school authority either to depute a competent person to place all relevant records relating to admission of students in Class-I in the school or to engage a learned Advocate to assist the Court.
After such order was passed Mr. Rabindra Nath Bag, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the school authority. Mr. Bag filed an affidavit-in-opposition in this matter and has placed before this Court that there is a policy for admission of the students which has been framed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi, which is called as guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalayas. Part-C of the said guidelines specifies for procedure of admission. Paragraph 4 mentions the method of admission in Class-I. Relevant portions of the said paragraph is -
"(1) In first phase, 10 seats (out of 40 seats) in Class-I per section are to be filled as per RTE Provisions (25% of seats) and these 10 seats will be filled by draw of lots from all applcations of SC/ST/EWS/BPL/OBC (Non Creamy Layer)/Differently abled taken together.
(2) In second phase, remaining seats are to be filled as per existing Priority category system. The short fall in the seats reserved for SC/ST, if any shall be made good by admitting SC/ST applicants.
For example: In a single Section School 6 seats are reserved for SC and 3 Searts for ST (15% for SC and 7.5% for ST). Assuming that, 2 SC candidates, 1 ST candidate and 1 Differently Abled candidate are admitted under RTC in the lottery system in first phase, then available SC seats will be considered as 6-2 = 4 and ST seats will be 3-1 = 2. The left out registered candidates from SC and ST category will be considered as per order of Priority categories for admission. In this case the remaining 24 seats will be available for admission under order of Priority of Category.
Note-1:
(a) In no case the seats reserved as per RTE will be de-reserved.
(b) The seats reserved for SC/ST may be interchanged, by interchanging SC seats to ST and vice-versa after 20th July.
(c) If required numbers of candidates covered under RTE do not register in 1st spell of registration then a second notification may be given in the month of April.
(d) The definition/eligibility criteria of Disadvantaged Group/Weaker Section/BPL/OBC (Non creamy layer) will be as per the notification of the concerned State Governments.
(e) Admission test will not be conducted for Class I."
Mr. Bag further submits that as per application made by the petitioner's son, his name was considered for admission which will appear from page 51 of the affidavit-in-opposition under Serial No. 397 and the category and the caste mentioned therein "OBC, N/C i.e., Non-Creamy Layer". Those details have been recorded in the said list. It has been submitted by Mr. Bag that according to the policy guidelines, a resolution for admission procedure for the session 2016-17was adopted on 16th March, 2016, signed by the members and Chairman of the Vidyalaya Managing Committee including the Principal. The said resolution has been annexed at page 59 of the writ petition. Mr. Bag has submitted that according to the guidelines, lottery has been duly held and 30 candidates has been found successful in the lottery as a result of which, these 30 candidates from RTE group have been selected. He further submitted that out of these 30 selected candidates 26 got admission and, therefore, there was a vacancy of only four. Again a lottery was conducted for these four candidates. Mr. Bag has produced lottery slips in original before this Court and after perusal, the same have been handed back to him. Thus, total 30 candidates under RTE category have been filled up through a process of lottery as earmarked in the guidelines.
Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2 it appears that the school is controlled directly under the Union of India and for conduct of the admission in the said school including other such schools Government has framed guidelines as mentioned hereinabove and thereby, has framed a policy for admission of children belonging to different categories. Since the petitioner belongs to RTE group and his caste is OBC (Non Creamy Layer), this Court has scrutinized the record relating to the said category to which the petitioner belongs. The process in which the candidates have been selected is approved by the guidelines. On a scrutiny of records produced by the school authority and the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 it does not appear to this Court that there is any irregularity or any departure from the guidelines and its policy relating to admission of the children in the Kendriya Vidyalaya. It is settled law that no interference can be made in regard to a policy decision unless it is demonstratively, arbitrarily, capriciously, irrationally discriminatory or violative of constitution or statutory provision. The policy decision must be left to the Government. The Court will have no occasion to interfere in the policy decision unless there is infringement of fundamental rights. In such cases, Court normally does not substitute the decision of the authority by exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A mode has been prescribed under the guidelines regarding selection and the same has been complied with by the authority and that is sufficient for the authority to have done in accordance with law. This Court does not find any infirmity in the decision making process of the authority concerned. Therefore, no Writ of Certiorari can be issued aginst the respondent concerned.
In the present case, it is the specific averment of the petitioner that no lottery was held and, therefore, entire procedure for selection stood vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fide but on perusal of the record, the same cannot be substantiated. On perusal of the record and the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 it is absolutely clear that no infraction of the prescribed guidelines has been made by the school authority. Therefore, the decision of the authority cannot be interfered with. No relief can be granted in this writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
( Sahidullah Munshi, J. )