Santosh Kumar and anr. Vs. Rashtriya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan Parishad, New Delhi and ors.

Santosh Kumar and anr. vs Rashtriya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan Parishad, New Delhi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 20, 1987

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/464202

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/464202
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.N. Sapru and ;R.S. Dhavan, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 20, 1987
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 15480 of 1987
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - presumption of domicile - Clause Da of Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme - admission to entrance test of certain students who have studied in urban area challenged on grounds of rural domicile - Clause Da presumes rural domicile of students who have studied school in rural area - held, said Clause does not say stude...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santosh Kumar and anr.

Advocate Dharampal Singh and ;V.P. Pathak, Advs.

Respondent

Rashtriya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur Prashikshan Parishad, New Delhi and ors.

Advocate Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114
Reported In: AIR1988All131

Excerpt

civil - presumption of domicile - clause da of navodaya vidyalaya scheme - admission to entrance test of certain students who have studied in urban area challenged on grounds of rural domicile - clause da presumes rural domicile of students who have studied school in rural area - held, said clause does not say students who have studied in urban area may not have rural domicile - therefore students eligible to go through entrance test. - - 9. it is well known that some times students whose parents or guardians living in a rural area, send their children or wards to an urban area for study because of the lack of proper educational facilities in the rural area......students from the rural areas and the quota of the students having an urban domicile will be 25 per cent.2. the two petitioners applied for admission to the entrance test in the vidyalaya at kanpur, but have been denied admission on account of the fact that they did not attend class iii in a recognised primary school in a rural area.3. since very young children are involved, giving time for filing a counter-affidavit will delay the matter. we are also proceeding on the basis that the facts stated in the writ petition are correct.4. the petitioners' case is that they studied at home up to the educational standard for class iii and they were admitted in class iv in the basic primary pathshala, maholi, and from-which they graduated to class v in the same school. after completing class v, they have applied for permission to appear in the entrance test at the vidyalaya at kanpur.5. 'the petitioners' case is that the petitioners have been wrongly denied permission toappearby the district lnspector of schools, kanpur, who has taken the-view that since the petitioners had not attended a recognised school in a rural area in class iii, they were ineligible to appear in the entrance test. this view, apparently, has been taken by the district inspector of schools, on the basisof clause 'da'of the navodaya vidyalaya scheme, which is reproduced below : --^^m& ;fn fdlh nk=@nk=k usd{kk 3]4 vksj 5 oh f'k{kk xzkeh.k {ks= esa flfkfr eku;rk izkir fo|ky; ls izkirdh gks rks mls xzkeh.k {ks= dk ekuk tk;sxk a**6. this case involves an interpretation of the clause reproduced above.7. as we read this clause, it only raises a presumption that the. students will have a rural domicile who had attended and studied in classes iii, iv and v in a recognised school in a rural area. it does not say that unless the students have not studied in classes iii, iv and v in a recognised school in a rural area, they cannot have a rural domicile and be admitted to the vidyalaya, even though they may.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The Union of India has started a Scheme known as Navodya Vidyalaya thereinafter to be referred to as 'the Vidyalaya') under which schools are being established. Students are admitted to the Vidyalayas from Class VI. The Scheme provided, that 75 per cent of the seats will be reserved for the students from the rural areas and the quota of the students having an urban domicile will be 25 per cent.

2. The two petitioners applied for admission to the Entrance Test in the Vidyalaya at Kanpur, but have been denied admission on account of the fact that they did not attend Class III in a recognised Primary School in a rural area.

3. Since very young children are involved, giving time for filing a counter-affidavit will delay the matter. We are also proceeding on the basis that the facts stated in the writ petition are correct.

4. The petitioners' case is that they studied at home up to the educational standard for Class III and they were admitted in Class IV in the Basic Primary Pathshala, Maholi, and from-which they graduated to Class V in the same school. After completing Class V, they have applied for permission to appear in the Entrance Test at the Vidyalaya at Kanpur.

5. 'The petitioners' case is that the petitioners have been wrongly denied permission toappearby the District lnspector of Schools, Kanpur, who has taken the-view that since the petitioners had not attended a recognised school in a rural area in Class III, they were ineligible to appear in the Entrance Test. This view, apparently, has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools, on the basisof Clause 'Da'of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme, which is reproduced below : --

^^M& ;fn fdlh Nk=@Nk=k usd{kk 3]4 vksj 5 oh f'k{kk xzkeh.k {ks= esa fLFkfr ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ls izkIrdh gks rks mls xzkeh.k {ks= dk ekuk tk;sxk A**

6. This case involves an interpretation of the clause reproduced above.

7. As we read this clause, it only raises a presumption that the. students will have a rural domicile who had attended and studied in Classes III, IV and V in a recognised School in a rural area. It does not say that unless the students have not studied in Classes III, IV and V in a recognised school in a rural area, they cannot have a rural domicile and be admitted to the Vidyalaya, even though they may succeed in a competitive examination.

8. The reason why this clause has been introduced in the Scheme, is obvious. From the fact that a student has studied in Classes III, IV and V in a recognised school in a rural area, it can be obviously presumed that he has a rural domicile. This presumption obviates the necessity for a student of proving his rural domicile by raising a presumption of his rural domicile.

9. It is well known that some times students whose parents or guardians living in a rural area, send their children or wards to an urban area for study because of the lack of proper educational facilities in the rural area. It cannot be the intention of the makers of the Scheme that such students will be denied admission to the Vidayalayas on the reserved quota for the rural area merely because they have been sent in their initial year to study in an urban area.

10. On the facts of the present case, since the petitioners have not studied in a recognised school in Class III they will, if required by the authorities to do so, be required to prove that they have a rural domicile in order to be eligible for the reserved rural quota for admission to the Vidyalaya at Kanpur. Whether the petitioners possess or do not possess a rural domicile is for the concerned authority to decide and not for this Court.

11. In the circumstances, we direct the respondents, in particular the respondent No. 1, to permit the petitioners to take the Entrance Test of the Vidyalaya scheduled to be held on 23-8-1987. However, if the petitioners are successful in the Entrance Test, it willbe for the authorities to consider whether the petitioners are eligible for being admitted to the Vidyalaya against the reserved quota for rural areas.

12. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

13. A copy of this order will be given to the learned counsel today on payment of usual charges.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1987 Same Parties Santosh Kumar and anr. vs Rashtriya Shaikshik Anusandhan Aur ... Same Subject Constitution Same Judge B.N. Sapru and ;R.S. Dhavan, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sec...

Constitution