1. This Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying a Writ of Certiorari for concellation of the impugned order dated 2.8.2000 (Annexured D) inter alia on the ground that the order impugned has been passed in violation of the rights providedunder Article 21 of the Constitution and also a Judgement of the Supreme Court.
2. Factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition may be summarily recited.
Petitioner was a Student of Keudriya Vidyalaya. IOC, Guwahati, Noonmati. He passed Class-X from All India Secondary School Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in 2000. He applied for admission in the said School in Class-XI in Science Stream for the Session 2000-2001
3. The undisputed fact is that in the All India Secondary Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as CBSE) the Petitioner secured the following marks -
(a) English Course-A 46% marks (b) Hindi Course-A 60% marks (c) Mathematics 52% marks(d) Science 55% marks(e) Social Science 33% marks Total aggregate marks comes to 49.2%
4. Pursuant to the application the petitioner was given admission in the XI Class on 28.6.2000 after realising the necessary admission fees. The Classes for the session 2000-2001 in Class-XI started on 3.7.2000 and the petitioner attended the classes on 3.7.2000. However, on 4.7.2000 when the petitioner came to attend Class the Respondent No. 3 called the petitioner to his chamber and directed that he should not attend classes from next day. The respondent No.3 further directed the petitioner that he should report to his chamber along with his parents from the next day. It is stated in paragraph 27 of the petition that accordingly on the next day both the petitioner and his father net the Respondent No. 3 and made an enquiry anout the reason for not allowing the petitioner to attend the classes. Repeated requests made by the father of the petitioner without any result followed by an advocate notice on 27.7.2000 and on receipt of the said notice the impugned order date 2.8.2000 has been communicated to the father of the petitioner.
5. Before I proceed further, I may dispose of one of the contentious issues at this stage. It is contended by Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner that admission was granted in respect ofthe petitioner on 28.6.2000, However, the cancellation of the admission has been communicated to the father of the petitioner for the first time by the impugned order dated 2.8.2000. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the cancellation of the admission in respect of the petitioner had been informed promptly on 30.6.2000 to the elder brother of the petitioner, who is also a student of the school.
6. Be that as it may, the admitted fact is that the classes for XIth class for the session 2000-2001 started on 3.7.2000 student was informed that he should not attend the class from the next day and also directed that the father of the petitioner should meet the respondent No. 3 on 5.7.2000. The statements made in paragraph 25, 26 and 27 of the writ petition would clearly show that the cancellation of the admission in respect of the petitioner has been comunicated to the father of the student as far back as on 4.7.2000, although formal communications were made on 2.8.2000. This being the position, the petitioner and father of the petitioner came to know of the decision of the school authority as far as back 4.7.2000 without much loss of time.
7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner is aggrieved .by impugned order dated 2.8.2000 (Anriexure-D).
The impugned order is extracted :
'40... F PF/KV IOC/2000-2001/239 dt. 2.8.2000
To,
Mr. Birendra Kumar Das,
Father of Master Rahul Kr. Kashyap
Noonmati, Guwahati - 20
Sub :- Cancellation of admission of your ward.
Sir,
With reference to the above, I have the honour to inform you that as per admission guidelines, 2000 of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan admission In Class XI in SCIENCE stream is done in the following manner :
Science with mathematics
a minimum of 50% in math, and
a minimum of 50% in science, and
a minimum of 55% marks in Maths and Science together and a minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate of all subject.
Science without mathematics.
a minimum of 55% marks in science alone and a minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate of all the subjects (page 6 and 8 of admission guideline, 2000).
But as your son's aggregate of all the subjects in 49.2% (less then 50%) his admission which was done on 28.6.2000 wrongly due to oversight is hereby cancelled and a demand draft No. 813890 dated 01.08.2000 for Rs. 635 (Rupees six hundred thirty five only) is returned herewith which was charged from him at the time of admission.
The Inconvenience caused to you is hereby regretted.
Withregards,
Yours faithfully,
(Mrs. S Chetia)
PRINCIPAL
Copy to : Mr. Mr. Shamal Kashyap Paul
Advocate
Rly Or. No. L-71/A
Guwahati- 781001
Assam
2. Assistant Commissioner, KVS Guwahati Region
Sd/-
(Mrs S Chetia)
PRINCIPAL
Seal .....'
8. It is contended by Mr. Puskayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner that Kendriya Vidyalayas are basically Xllth standard school and there is no provision for fresh admission or re-admission from one class to other. According to him, once a student is admitted to a school the said admission continues class after and till he passes the last examination which is Xllth Class. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no separate to criteria/guideline has been laid down for the students to continue their studies in XI th and XIII classes after passing Class X examination.
9. Counter on behalf of the Respondents has been filed. It is the case of the Respondents that the admission of the petitioner to the school in the XIth Class on 28.6.2000 has been made throughoversight and inadvertently, because the application from of the petitioner got mixed up with the eligible forms from the files of rejected forms. It is the further case of respondents that this mistake has Been detected and it was immediately informed to the elder brother of the petitioner on 30.6.2000 without any delay. The further case of the respondent is that the cancellation of the admission to the petitioner has been done as he could not secure prescribed aggregate marks for admission in the Class XIth in Science stream in the admission guidelines, prepared by Kedriya Vidyalaya Sangthan.
10. Mr. Purkayastha, straneously submits that the examination of Xth Class is not treated as terminal examination and therefore since the petitioner wanted to continue his studies in Xlth and Xllth Classes, he should have been allowed to continue till he passes the last examination which is the Xllth Class. In this connection, counsel has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in The Principal, Cambridge School and another v. Ms. Payal Gupta and Ors. Reported in AIR 1996 SC 118. In that case, it was held by the Apex Court that a Student who passed Xth Class which was a public examination of Central Board of Secondary Education cannot be denied admission to Xlth Class of the same school by head of the Institution by prescribing cut off marks. The aforesaid rulling is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, because in that case the Delhi School Education Act (1973), Ss 16(3), 28(2) (q) and Rule 135, 137 and 138 provides that once a student is admitted to a school, the same admission continues class after class and till he passes the last Examination. In that context, it was pointed out by the Apex Court that no fresh admission or re-admission is contemplated from one class to other. In the present case, there is no such provision.
11. The admission quidelines, 2000 prepared by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, particularly admission to Class XI in Science stream prescribed the following cut of marks :
'.... Science Stream :
a minimum of 50 % marks in Mathematics, and
a minimum of 50 % marks in Science, and
a minimum of 55 % marks in Math and Science taken together,
and
a minimum of 50 % marks in the aggregate of all subjects ...'
It would clearly appear, therefore, that in order to get admission inthe Xlth Class in Science Stream a candidate is to secure a minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate of all subjects. In the present case, admittedly the Petitioner secured aggregate marks of 49.2% in all subjects.
12. It is not the case of the Petitioner that students similarly situated with him have been given admission and the same opportunity has been denied to him. On the other hand, specific averments has been made in paragraph 16 of the counter of the respondents that in the year 2000, 59 students passed All India Secondary School Examination (AISSE) from the same school like the Petitioner but only 31 students have been given admission in Class XI in science stream who fulfilled the prescribed norms and cut off level marks. The other students who did not score the cut off marks like the petitioner were denied admission. It is further averred in paragraph 17 of the affidavit that in Kendriya Vidayalaya, IOC Noonmati School there is no such provision that after Xth standard school examination a student is entitled to continue in his studies in the same school up to Xllth Class, unless one fulfils the prescribed norms.
13. It is categorically averred that admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya School have been followed as per the instruction of the Admission Guidelines and even the sons and daughters of the teachers of Kendriya Vidualaya IOC who otherwise deserves priority in admission over and above the class strength in normal condition were denied admission in Class XI (science stream) as they failed to secure the cut off marks. Instances are given in paragraph 22 of the counter as under :
Name of studentRoll No.YearName of the parent who is teacher of KV.lOC
Arunabh Sarnah31102191997Mrs. D D. Sarmah, PRTPawan Kr. Mishra31102791997Mr S K Mishra, TOTHriday Jyoti Seal31104961999Mrs D D Seal. PRTMousumi Des31070961995Mr. R K Das. SUPWBidyut Bikash Das31102611997Mr. R K Das, SUPW.......'
14. In my view, the admission guideline prescribed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for admission in Class XI in Science stream does not suffer either from vires of arbitrariness, or mala fide. On the other hand, it has been prescribed on rational basis so as to attract the better talents in Science stream for advancement ofscientific and technological development to serve public interest better.
15. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is equaitable justice. As already stated, it is not a case of the Petitioner that person similarly situated with him has been given admission and he is being denied. If that was the case, there would be no difficulty for granting equitable relief to him. But this is not a case. On the other hand, a specific averment has been made that out of 59 students seeking for admission in Class XI for the year 20010-2001 only 31 students have been given admission who fulfilled the requisite cut off marks prescribed by guidelines and 28 students who were similarly situated with the petitioner and failed to secure the cut off marks have been rejected. This being the position. Petitioner cannot raise any grievances at all, since he has been equally treated. In such a situation, if relief is granted-to the Petitioner, it would amount to justice to him at the costs of injustice to other 28 students who were similarly situated with him and dented admission in the Xlth Class.
16. It is stated by Mr. Purkayastha that the petitioner is continuing in the class by virtue of interim order dated 25.8.2000 and he be allowed to continue. I am not at all impressed by such submission. While issuing a notice of motion this Court on 25.8,2000 passed an interim order in terms of the following :
'Operation of Annexure-D would remain stayed meaning thereby that the petitioner Shri Rahul Kumar Kashyap (Das) would be . allowed to attend Classes. However, such attendance would not confer any rights upon the petitioner if ultimately it is found by this court that there is no merit in the writ petition.'
The aforesaid interim order is conditional order and at the risk of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim right to continue in the Xlth Class in Science Stream pursuant to the interim order. On the other hand a wrong admission granted to him confers no right to continue in the XIth Class when he fails to secure cut off marks prescribed for the admission. It may be harsh and painful to the petitioner, but since these is element of public interest to maintain the standard of education, he has to bear the brand.
17. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their won costs.
18. Before parting with the records, I am constrained to observe that despite of dismissal of the petitton, the Respondent No, 2shall Consider,, if any alternative arrangement can be made in accommodating the petitioner in Commerce Stream or any other subjects of this choice other than the Science stream. For which a representation may be filed by the petitioner and if filed withion 15 days from the date of the judgment, the authority may consider his case for admission in Commerce stream or any other subjects and in such event lie shall not be debarred from appearing in such examination for wants of percentage of attendance.