REENA KUMARI Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Such is the keen competition that even for entry into an educational institution at school level, the minor children are to take resort to writ jurisdiction of this court. Would it be just and proper to throw out the petitioner in the midst of session when she is herself not at fault and the fault, if any may lie with the respondent school's administrative staff ? Her father a class-IV employee in Military Engineering Service is also being blamed by the respondents. Unable to himself attain school education, he made a sincere and all out effort to see that his female child (writ petitioner) does get those facilities which he was unable to get. The petitioner was granted admission in April, 1996. After 18 months of her stay in the school, the petitioner through her parents was informed that her admission has been cancelled. By that time, the petitioner stood promoted to 10th class also. When this action was taken by the respondent authorities, she approached this court.

(2.) The minor writ petitioner applied for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathani, Udhampur. It was for 9th class. She was granted admission. She deposited the admission fee and other dues.

(3.) The stand taken by them is that the petitioner had not attached documents with the admission forms from which it could be ascertained and established that she had passed 8th standard examination from Kinder Caten Academy, Udhampur in April, 1996. It is also submitted that as soon as the admission form is submitted, the matter is examined by the office. After all the formalities are completed, the admission is granted. It is submitted that the clerk who was dealing with the matter was remiss in the matter of examining the requisite documents submitted by the petitioner. On account of his lapse, the petitioner was able to get admission in disregard of the Rules. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained the admission by fraudulent means. The petitioner was asked to make available the transfer certificate. The stand taken by the petitioner was that the requisite documents had been made available. As the father of the petitioner was unable to give the requisite information, therefore, steps were taken with a view to cancel the admission of the petitioner. In nutshell, the case of the respondents is that on scrutiny of the admission record and while completing the admission forms which were to be sent to the Central Board of Secondary Examination for 10th class, it transpired that the transfer certificate and the marks certificate is respect of the petitioner, who was at that time studying in 10th class, was not available. The parents of the petitioner were accordingly requested to make available the requisite documents. A letter was written on 22nd Sept. 1997. This was followed by the reply given by the petitioner's father. This is dated 25th Sept. 1997. Another letter was written by the respondents. This is 29th September 1997. As there was alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish the requisite information, her candidature was cancelled. This happened on 3rd Oct. 1997.