Orissa High Court
Maheswari Mohapatra And Ors. vs Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. And Ors. on 20 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2005ORI101, 99(2005)CLT731, AIR 2005 ORISSA 101, (2005) 99 CUT LT 731
Author: J.P. Mishra
Bench: P.K. Mohanty, J.P. Mishra
JUDGMENT J.P. Mishra, J.
1. This Petitioner No. 1 being a minor student has called in question the Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) of Annexure-3 under the heading 'Admission to Std. -XI (Science stream) through her father (petitioner No. 2) as she was thrown out from the zone of consideration for admission to the Higher Secondary Course even though she was otherwise eligible being the student of the same school (O.P. No. 3).
2. It is the case of Petitioner No. 1 that Opp. Party No. 3-D.A.V. Public School, MCL, Kalinga Area is wholly financed by Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (in short "MCL") providing education from L.K.G. to Class XII. The Petitioner No. 2 being an employee of MCL (his daughter Petitioner No. 1) took admission in the school of Opposite Party No. 3 and passed in 1st Division in the examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (Annexure-2). After the result was published by the CBSE, she opted to take admission in the same school with the subjects Physics, Chemistry, Biology along with Computer Application. The conditions mentioned in Annexure-3 for admission to Class XI is that a candidate must have secured 60% in Class X in aggregate. In addition to that he/ she must secure 60% of marks in each of the subject i.e., Mathematics & Science. According to her averments she should have been given admission being a ward of MCL employee and not the students of other school or the wards of any other employee even though she was not qualifying as per the brochure (Annexure-3). She has alleged that Opposite Party No. 3 intentionally in order to divert the vacancy to the outsiders for collecting higher tuition fee along with premium has deprived her to take admission in Class XI. It is also her case that the authority (Opp. Party No. 3) has added the obnoxious condition to eject some of the candidates from the zone of consideration for the year 2004-2005. The matter was brought to the notice of the authorities of MCL under Annexure-4 by her father, but since it yielded no result she has come with the prayer to quash Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) of Annexure-3 under the heading of 'Admission to Std. XI (Science Stream)'.
3. The Principal, DAV Public School, MCL, Kalinga Area (Opposite Party No. 3) filed counter affidavit denying the allegations alleged by the petitioner. According to him, as the petitioner did not come into the zone of consideration, she was not considered for the admission. It is admitted by him that the school is sponsored by MCL and directly controlled and governed by the DAV, CMC, New Delhi. It is further stated that Clause (ii) specifying qualification and percentage of marks and adhered even in the previous year and it is not a new insertion to deprive the petitioner No. 1 from admission. Only to accommodate the wards of MCL the percentage of Mathematics and Science were reduced by 5% i.e., to 55% instead of 60% as per the prospectus. But, the Petitioner has secured only 44% both in Mathematics and Science for which she was not given admission. It is also stated that Annexure-3 is on the basis of criteria fixed by Kendriya Bidyalaya Sangathana, an Educational Agency, managed by the Ministry of Human Resources, Govt. of India and the Opposite Party No. 3 followed the admission guidelines and found petitioner No. 1 ineligible for fresh admission in Class XI. It has been further mentioned in Paragraph 14 of the counter that DAV College Managing Committee has been running the school with MCL vide an agreement dated 15.2.1995 between the DAV, CMC, New Delhi and MCL headquarters at Burla, Sambalpur. According to the agreement, the Principal (Opposite Party No. 3) can also give admission to the outsides while giving preference to the wards of MCL within the norms of the prospectus. Since the Petitioner No. 1 has not secured 55% of marks both in Mathematics and Science, she was rightly not admitted into Class XI even though she was reading in the same school.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the decision reported in The Principal, Cambridge School and Anr. v. Ms. Payal Gupta and Ors., AIR 1995 SCW 3805; whereas his adversary has relied on the admission guidelines showing fresh admission for Class XI to meet the decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners.
5. The following are the questions to be considered in this Writ Application :
(i) Whether the Opposite Party No. 3 has inserted Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) under the heading 'Admission to Std. XI (Science Stream)' to the prospectus, 2004-05 in order to deprive the petitioner and other students for admission in Class XI of the school;
(ii) Whether fresh admission is not required for the students passed from the same school i.e., DAV Public School, MCL, Kalinga Area; and
(iii) Whether the Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) under the heading of 'Admission to Standard XI (Science Stream)' is arbitrary ?
6. The admitted fact are that Petitioner No. 1 was continuing her studies in D.A.V. Public School, MCL Kalinga Area, Bada Jorada, Angul (Opp. party No. 3) and passed Class X in May, 2004 securing 44% marks in each of the subject i.e., Mathematics and Science. Being the student of the same school, she was not considered for admission in Class XI Science Stream for not securing 60% marks in each of the subjects i.e., Mathematics and Science. It is also admitted fact that the school-Opposite Party No. 3 has been sponsored by MCL for education facility in that area.
7. Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) in the heading of 'Admission to Standard XI (Science Stream) is as under for the year 2004-05 along with other Clauses :
'Admission to Std. XI (Science Stream) :
(i) The school will admit students to class XI only for Science Stream.
(ii) Minimum Eligibility Criteria to apply :
(a) Aggregate mark in Std. X - 60%
(b) Marks Secured in Maths & Sc. - 60% in each.
(iii) Subjects to be taught : English, Physics, Chemistry, Math., Computer Sc. & Biology.
(iv) The admission will be carried out on mark basis for the students passed out from Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. For the candidates passed out from other Boards, the admission will be carried out through written test. However, first preference will be given to the MCL employees.
(v) Duly filled application forms will be accepted for Registration without duly filled non-refundable fee of Rs. 20/- (Rs. 50/-for non-MCL candidates).
(vi) MCL employees will submit the forms after getting it countersigned by the concerned dept.
(vii) A photograph of the child and attested photo copies of mark sheet & transfer certificate will be submitted with the application form.
(viii) Last date of Submission of duly filled application from is 19th June 2004.
(ix) The application form may be rejected for any kind of wrong information given therein.
(x) Admission Test will be conducted as follows on 20.6.2004 at 8.30 a.m.
(xi) Question paper for written test will be a question paper-cum-answer sheet consisting of the general questions on the subjects, English, Maths & Science of the preceding class.
(xii) Duration of examination : 1 hour.
(xiii) The result will be declared on 23.6.2004.
(xiv) Admission cannot be claimed on issuance of Admission Form or Registration for Admission Test."
On perusal of Annexure-B(iii) filed on 16.12.2004 by Opposite Party No. 3, it is found that there is absolutely no change, which was prevailing in the prospectus of 2003-04 of the same school. Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) under the heading of 'Admission to Standard XI (Science Stream)' is exactly the same requiring 60% marks in each of the subjects Mathematics and Science in addition to 60% marks in aggregate mentioned in Sub-clause (a). Therefore, it can never be said that Sub-clause (b) has been inserted with mala fide intention to deprive the wards of MCL employees and to admit outsiders by collecting premiums.
8. In the decision relied by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners in The Principal, Cambridge School and Anr. v. Ms. Payal Gupta and Ors.; AIR 1995 SCW 3805, the ratio decided was as to whether a student shall be required to undergo fresh admission for higher class reading in the same school. While deciding the question the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 along with Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. As the Apex Court did not find any provision in the Act or the aforesaid Rules specifically contemplating readmission or fresh admission to every next higher class, it turned down the prayer of the appellants who was no other than the Principal Cambridge School. The above cited ratio is not applicable to the present facts of the case for the reason that the Opp. Party No. 3 is governed by the guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In the said guidelines, requirement of fresh admission into Class XI has been specifically mentioned in Chapter XI(4)(b)(f) which reads as follows :
"(f) Class XI-Fresh admissions would be made in the order of merit in the sequence of categories of priorities on the basis of Board results of Class X. There will be two distinct situations for admission in Science and Commerce streams.
One situation would be where adequate number of eligible children are available for the admission to the streams from amongst students passing Class X from KVS as well as from amongst students from other schools seeking admission in a KV with the requisite eligibility.
The second situation would be where adequate number of eligible children are not available for the stream from amongst students passing Class X from KVS as well as from other schools. The cut off marks for admission in both these situations would be as follows :
Provision for Provision for
admissions in admission in
situation wherein situation wherein
adequate number adequate number
of eligible of eligible
children are children are
available not available
A. Science
Stream
(i) Science with -A minimum of --A minimum of
Mathematics 55% marks in 52% marks in
Maths and Maths and
-A minimum of -A minimum of
60% marks in 52% marks in
Maths & Science
Science taken -A minimum of
together and 57% marks in
-A minimum of Maths and
55% marks in Science taken
aggregate of all together-A
subjects. minimum of 52%
marks in aggregate
of all subjects.
(ii) Science Science without Science without
without Mathematics Mathematics
Mathematics may be allowed may be allowed
if the student if the student
has 60% marks has 57% marks
in Science and in Science and
a minimum of a minimum of
55% marks in 52% marks in
aggregate of all aggregate in all
subjects. Subjects."
Since there is specific provision for admission into Class XI in the school of Opp. Party No. 3 as per the admission guidelines, the decision relied on by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is of no assistance.
The school authorities laid down the aforesaid percentage of marks only to give chances to the most meritorious students. Simultaneously, the school authorities (Opp. Party No. 3) also tried to give preference to the wards of MCL Employees. In Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that on the request of the Principal of the school, the Regional Director, DAV Institution, Orissa condoned the percentage of marks for selecting wards of MCL to 5%, in other wards, it became 55% in each of the subjects in Mathematics and Science. The selection list filed by Opp. Party No. 3 reveals that Petitioner No. 1 is in Sl. 59 and has secured only 44% of marks in Mathematics and Science. Further, in Sl. 52 non-MCL category student has not been selected even though he had secured 55% in toto only to give preference to the wards of MCL employees. Therefore, Sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) under the heading of 'Admission to Standard XI (Science Stream)' of the prospectus cannot be called arbitrary.
In the result, we dismiss the Writ Application.
P.K. Mohanty, J.
9. I agree.