Nishanth Jaladi Vs Union of India

Nishanth Jaladi, being a minor represented by its natural father Anil Kumar Jaladi, S/o Prasad Jaladi (Late) aged 40 years, Occ: Daily wage Painter/o 524-68,Ground Floor, Opp Simhachalam Enclave, Christurajupurm, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Union Of India, Ministry of Education, Department of School Education epresented by ,ts Secretary, 307-309, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

¶13

2 T e Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, No. t8. Institutional Area, heed Jeet Srngh Marg, New Delhi-110016, Represented by its

¶14

Commissioner,

¶15

The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Represented by its Deputy

¶16

Commissioner, Regional Office FF2W PLUS F9V, General Choudhary

¶17

Rd, Picket, Gunrock Enclave, ‘ Secunderabad, Telangana 500009

¶18

P. M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, No 2, Represented by its Principal Guntupalii Wagon WorKshop,^Ayyappa Nagar, Guntupalli, Vijayawada' NTR District, Andhra Pradesh 521241 Petitioner

¶19

Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE), Represented by its

¶20

Secretary, Shiksha Kendra-2 Community centre, Preet Vihar, New

¶21

Delhi -110092.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Gireumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue may be an appropriate writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in denying admission for class 1 (one) Petitioner namely Nishanth Jaladi (application No 252540109382813365) in P.M.Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No 2 ijayawada. Region Hyderabad (RTE Lottery No 18 ) as illegal arbitrary' unconstitutional and contrary to the guidelines issued for admission in No • 2 ,Vijayawada Region ,Hyderabad (RTE Lottery No 18) forthwith.

¶24

jA NO: 1 OF

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide admission to class son 1(one) to the Petitioner M.Shn v,dW„. 2 in

¶26

jA NO: 2 OF onoK

¶27

Between:

¶28

Union of India Ministry of Education, Department of School Education

¶29

2 Thr'T^r '' Delhi ' Shah r, r' Area Commtsir,

¶30

The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Represented by its Deputy

¶31

Commissioner, Regional Offioe FF2W PLUS F9V, General Choudhary , icket, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad, Telangana 500009

¶32

. . M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, No 2, Represented by its Principal Guntupa II Wagon Workshop, Ayyappa Nagar, Guntupalli, Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh 521241

¶33

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 4

¶34

AND

¶35

Nishanth Jaladi, being a minor represented by its natural father Anil Kumar Jaladi, S/o Prasad Jaladi (Late) aged 40 years, Occ: Daily wage

¶36

Painter/o 52-4-68,Ground Floor, Opp Simhachalam Enclave,

¶37

Christurajupurm, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶38

-Respondent/writ petitioner

¶39

Centrai Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) . Represented by its Secretary, Shiksha Kendra-2 Community centre, Preet Vihar New Delhi -110092.

¶40

...respondent/respondent No.5 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 07/04/2025 passed in WP No 9052 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L. V. S. NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4:SRI J. U. M. V. PRASAD

¶41

(CENTRAL government COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI T. D. PHANI KUMAR, SC FOR CBSE

¶42

The Court made the following order:

¶43

APHC010176542025

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶45

[3327]

¶46

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 9052/2025

¶49

Between:

¶50

1.NISHANTH JALADI, BEING A MINOR REPRESENTED BY ITS NATURAL FATHER ANIL KUMAR JALADI S/0 PRASAD JALADI (LATE) AGED 40 YEARS OCC DAILY WAGE PAINTER/O 52-4-68,GROUND FLOOR, OPP SIMHACHALAM ENCLAVE,CHRISTURAJUPURM .VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶51

...PETITIONER

¶52

AND

¶53

1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENTOF SCHOOL EDUCATION. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 307-309, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

¶54

2.THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, NO. 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI-110016, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶55

3.THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE FF2W PLUS F9V, GENERAL CHOUDHARY RD, PICKET, GUNROCK ENCLAVE, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA 500009

¶56

4.P M SHRI KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO 2. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. GUNTUPALLI WAGON WORKSHOP, AYYAPPA NAGAR, GUNTUPAIII, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 521241. PETITIONER

¶57

5.CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION CBSE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAI-Y, SHIKSHA KENDRA-2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110092.

¶58

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶59

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

¶60

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

¶61

2

¶62

or^er " appropriate wm. mandamus to declare the^ action o^f th of adm ssion for class 1(one) pSoner son ia denying application No 2525401093SS "amely NIshanth Jaladl Vidyalaya No.2, Vijayawada Rpninn u ^ ^ P-M.Shri Kendriya h®F®'' P''P''rary, unconstItuWonal a^nTcnnT issued for admission in KpnHriuo / w ^Of^trary to the guidelines 2025- 2026 anT^ward^corisea'^enf ^aademl ®iea? provide admission to class irnrJL\ the respondents to ®°" NIshanth Jaladl (application No 2525401093S?fii?a®'^ I ntt "''m No 2 .VIjayawai S i '" Nl-Shrl ,‘-°«f:yNo 18) forthwith and pass^ ^ ® .Hyderabad (RTE lA NO: 1 OF ?noi^ ^

¶63

Petition under Section 151 cpp SrHTgfCourt may et'plelse™^^^^^ praying°f'hethat Petitionin the P™''® h'^"iission to class 1 (one) to 'the respondents^to Nishanth Jaladl (application No 252540 noafloS®,",®’’^{®°®"^hiely} Kendriya Vidyalaya No 2 PM.Shrl Lottery No 18 ) forthwith pe'^'dirgXosarrhe"^''""'’^''^<""" writ petition and IAN0:2 QF 9noi: Petition under Section 151 rpr circumstances stated in the affidavit fnpH -n th® the High Court may be pleased piriefte "'® P®'i"°n, °'''®'' dated 07/04/2025 passed In WP No 9052 of 2025^ h® Counsel for the Petitioner: ^ 1L VS NAGARAJU 1TDPANI KUMAR ^ 2. J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL

¶64

government COUNSEL)

¶65

The Court made the following:

¶66

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶67

WRIT PETITION No.9052 of 2025

¶68

ORDER:

¶69

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of respondents in denying admission for 1st Class in P.M.ShriKendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Vijayawada, Region Hyderabad (RTE Lottery No. 18) as illegal and arbitrary^and consequently direct the respondents to provide admission^to petitioner’s son in the aforementioned School.

¶70

It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He is a daily wage employee working in and around Vijayawada as painter. In response^to Online Notification dated 07.03.2025, he applied for admission of his son Nishanth Jaladi in 1®^ Class in Kendriya Vidyalaya schools of viz. P.M. Shri K.V. Nos.l and 2 in Vijayawada region. As per the Notification/instructions,^upto three choices of KendriyaVidyalayas without any preference between them, can be given i.e. one can apply up to^three KendriyaVidyalayas using the same online application^form, Distance between residence of the petitioner and

¶71

2

¶72

P.M.ShriKendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 is less than 5 KMs, and the other P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya ISi more than 5 KMs from the residence of petitioner.

¶73

It is the case of the petitioner that his son is eligible for admission under RTE norms, and in pursuance of application No.252540109382813365, through lottery, his son was allotted P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Vijayawada with lottery No. 18 in RTE Lottery result. Accordingly, he approached the School on 29.3.2025 and 01.04.2025 for admission. but the Principal of 4* respondent school informed him that admission cannot be given as distance of his residence which i ' IS disclosed in the application form, to the School is more than 5 KMs.

¶74

It is the grievance of petitioner that admission cannot be denied only on the ground of distance of his house is more than 5 KMs away from School, and that he does not have any permanent residence and he i is staying in a rented house and he is ready to shift his residence to the nearest location to school immediately for better education of his son and will give undertaking to that effect. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶75

3

¶76

%

¶77

Counter affidavit, deposed by 3'’'^ respondent, is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, inter alia, stating as follows.

¶78

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) issued Admission schedule for the session 2025-26. Certain seats are reserved for fresh admissions as per the Admission Guidelines^forKVS within the approved class strength of 40 students per^Section i.e. 25% (10 seats) under the Right to Education Act,^2009; 15% (06 seats) for Scheduled Caste; 7.5% (03 seats) for Scheduled Tribe; 27% (11 seats) for OBC and 3% for differently abled applicants, horizontally. As per SI.No.4⁽¹⁾ (I) of the Admission Guidelines, out of 40 seats per Sectionⁱⁿ Class-1, 10 seats are to be filled as per Right to^Education provisions and the same will be filled by draw of lots^fromall applications of SC/ST/ EWS/BPL/OBC/differently abled. taken together who are the resident of ‘neighbourhood’. For determining the limits of ‘neighbourhood’, KendriyaVidyalayas categorized the distance from the Vidyalayala to the residence, as per the KVS Admission Guidelines, which^is5 KMs radius, in case of major cities and urban area (all district headquarters and metros) and 8 KMs radius, in case^ofother

¶79

4

¶80

places and areas. A child applying ini one of the above categories will be automatically considered for admission in RTE category in Vijayawada, to which he applied, as per the KVS Admission Guidelines.

¶81

Petitioner submitted online application on 19.03.2025 for admission to Class-I to his son during 2025-26 under RTE at PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.l, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, as 1st choice, and PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli, Vijayawada, as 2*td choice, by providing residential address as ‘H.No.53-4-68, Ground Floor, Opposite Simhachalam Enclave, Chidsturajupuram, Vijayawada’, by declaring the distance from both the Schools to his residence as less than or equal to 5 KMs. Name of the ward of the petitioner did not appear in 1st list in respect of admission to P.M. Shri K.V. No.l, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, but it was in wait list at si.No.84. For admission i in P.M.K.V.No.l, Wagon Workship, Vijayawada, name of the ward of the petitioner appeared at si.No. 18 im select list of 20 candidates under RTE quota, for which the prescribed distance from the Vidyalaya to residence should be less than or equal to 5 KMs, and his

¶82

5

¶83

name was at wait list at SI.No.92 in Scheduled Caste reservation category, for which distance is not a criteria,^and in other service category, he stood in wait list at^{si.No.152,for} which also distance is not a criteria. On verification of documents, it v/as found that the distance from P.M.Shri^K.V. No.2, Wagon Workshop, Vijayawada to residence of petitioner is about 17 KMs. Therefore, the petitioner submitted misleading information in his online application that the distance is less than or equal to 5 KMs. The petitioner’s^ward does not fulfil the required and prescribed norms of ‘neighbourhood’ in terms of Admission Guidelines for^KVS. In view of the same, admission is not provided to the^wardofthe petitioner. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶84

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. Perused the record. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-authorities cannot deny admission to a student on the ground of distance of his

¶85

6

¶86

residence to School, under the guise of Admission Guidelines, if he is otherwise eligible, and the same violates the constitutional rights of the petitioner’s ward to education, He submits that the petitioner is a daily wage worker. working as painter, and has no permanent residence and ISi staying in a rented house, and he is ready to shift his residence to nearest location to the school i immediately, and hence, he prays to direct the respondents to provide admission to petitioner’s son. 6. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that it is clearly prescribed ini the Admission Guidelines that the distance between the residence of student and the school shall be within 5 KMs radius from the School in major cities and urban areas, in order to consider a candidate for admission i n ‘neighbourhood’ category, and having agreed for the same, online application was submitted by the petitioner. and now. he cannot turn around and contend that distance cannot be the basis to provide an admission. He submits that if the petitioner’s ward ISi provided admission, the other eligible candidate, who is residing in the prescribed distance. would

¶87

7

¶88

suffer, and that the Admission Guidelines are not challenged by the petitioner, and hence, he prays to dismiss the^Writ Petition.

¶89

He relied on a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Poorvi Gawhade v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan (KVS) & others^ in support of his contention.

¶90

The factual matrix is not in dispute. Petitioner made an online application on 19.03.2025 for admission^of his son Nishanth Jaladi into Class-I in under RTE quotaⁱⁿ PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.l, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, as 1 St choice, and PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli, Vijayawada, as 2nd choice. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner provided his residential address as ‘H.No.53-4-68, Ground Floor, Opposite Simhachalam Enclave, Christurajupuram, Vijayawada’, by declaring the distance from both the^Schools to his residence as less than or equal to 5 KMs. From a perusal of the Admission Guidelines in KendriyaVidyalayas, it is clear that out of 40 seats per Section in Class-I, 10 seats are to be filled as per Right to Education provisions^andthe

¶91

^ Judgment dated 22.02.2021 in W.P.No. 12712 of 2020

¶92

8

¶93

same will be filled by draw of lots from all applications of SC/ST/ EWS/BPL/OBC/differently abled, taken together who are the resident of “neighbourhood’, It is also not in dispute that in order to determine the limits of ‘neighbourhood’, ‘distance’ from the Vidyalaya to the residence of the student is categorized by the Kendriya Vidyalayas, as per the KVS Admission Guidelines i. e. 5 KMs radius, in case of major cities and urban area (all district headquarters and metros) and 8 KMs radius, in case of other places and areas. It is also not in dispute that a child applying in one of the above categories will be automatically considered for admission in RTE category i„ Vijayawada, to which he applied, as per the KVS Admission Guidelines.

¶94

It is also clear from the record that petitioner’s ward could not come up for admission in 1st ijgt in respect of admission into 3 sections in Class-1 to P.M. Shri K.V. No.l, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada and he was in wait list at sl.No.84. In respect of admission intoi 2 sections of Class-I to P.M.K.V.No.2, Wagon Workship, Vijayawada, name of the ward of the petitioner appeared at sl.No.18in 1st select list of 20 candidates under RTE quota, for which the prescribed

¶95

9

¶96

distance from the Vidyalaya to residence should be^lessthan or equal to 5 KMs. It is also evident from the record^that name of the ward of the petitioner was at wait list^atSI.No.92 in Scheduled Caste reservation category, for which^distanceis not a criteria, and in other service category, he stood^inwait list at si.No. 152, for which also distance is not^acriteria. On the ground that the distance between the residence of the petitioner and the P.M. Shri K.V.No.2, Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli, Vijayawada, is more than 5 KMs, candidature^of ward of the petitioner was not considered for admission in ‘neighbourhood’ category. Admittedly, distance of the residence of the petitioner to P.M. Shri K.V.No.2, Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli, Vijayawada is about 17 KMs, which does not fit into the Admission Guidelines for KVS for consideration of his ward’s admission in ‘neighbourhood’ category. The petitioner’s ward could not come up for admission in other categories viz. Scheduled Caste reservationor Other Service Category.

¶97

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a student cannot be denied on the ground of distance of his residence to School, and that the petitioner has no permanent

¶98

10

¶99

I

¶100

residence and residing i m a rented house, and he is a daily wage worker working as painter, and that the petitioner undertakes to shift his residence immediately to a nearest place to School, and hence, a direction may be issued to consider candidature of son of the petitioner for admission.

¶101

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions, in support of his contention. (a| Judgment of the High Court of Judicatu re at Madras in C.Balasubramanian v. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalay a. IIT Campus, ChennaP, wherein it is held i

¶102

n paragraph No.7, as under:

¶103

4

¶104

In so far as the last objection regarding noncompliance with the neighbourhood criteria is concerned. the same cannot be permitted for denying admission under the RTE quota. The object and intent of the RTE quota is to encourage persons who belong to lower strata of the society, to educate their children and also to ensure that children belonging to the lower strata of society are not deprived of best education, The present case is very peculiar in the sense that, though the wards parents belong to a remote village in Thenkasi District, where there are no KV Schools within 5 Kilometers from the village of Kothainachi lyapuram. Sankarankoil,

¶105

dated 30.04.2025 in W.P.Nos. 14189 of 2025

¶106

11

¶107

Tenkasi District, they desire to educate their child i n Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chennai with the support of their brother who is residing in Chennai. In my view, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the denial of admission to Master C.N.Varun Sethupathy, on the ground of neighbourhood criteria, would defeat the object Of the beneficial legislation. It is only to encourage parents to send their wards to schools with best infrastructure and training that the RTE Act has been enacted allocating 25% seats to children belonging to lower strata of the society. When there is no private school within 16 KMs of the wards parents residence,^the ward cannot be deprived of education, more so, when^the parents are willing to send the child to Chennai, to^his parental uncle’s house, for the purpose of his education.”

¶108

(b) Judgment of the High Court of Orissa in Rakesh Mahallick V. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneshwar & anothers, wherein it is held in paragraph No.35, as under:

¶109

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,^aswell as law discussed above, the reason as endorsed in Annexure-5 dated 01.05.2019 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of distance found more than 5 KMs (Google search), cannot sustain in the eyes^of law, and further reason assigned that more than 5 KMs is one of the reasons for denying admission under RTE category also cannot sustain, and the same are hereby

¶110

^ 2019 see Online Ori 517=AIR 2020 Ori 14

¶111

12

¶112

©

¶113

quashed. The opposite parties are directed to give admission to the petitioner i in KV Bhubaneswar No. 2 in Standard-I for the academic sessions 2019-20 within a period of 10 days from the date of passing of this judgment. It i IS made clear that if the seats are filled np, necessary steps shall be taken for creation of one seat for the petitioner and he shall be allowed to continue in Kv Bhubaneswar No.2 ini Standard-1 for the academic sessions 2019-20 by providing all assistance to him in comliance of Rule 14 of the 7 Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules , 2010.

¶114

Mercy is reasonable at times of affliction as clouds of rain ia reasonable at times of drought. Mercy and rain are timely blessings that alleviate suffering and provide relief when most needed, In the case on hand, petitioner is an illiterate and has no permanent residence, Petitioner is daily wage worker i. e. a painter, who works i in various places in and around Vijayawada, without having a permanent residence, He is struggling for admission of his son for providing better education to his son. Being illiterate, he might not have understood the Admission Guidelines i - m proper perspective at the time of making the online application. Admittedly, pursuant to the interim direction of this Court, a seat is kept vacant in first standard i m P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2,

¶115

13

¶116

Vijayawada. The object and intent of the RTE quota is to encourage persons who belong to lower strata of the society, to educate their children and also to ensure that children belonging to the lower strata of society are not deprived of best education. The petitioner undertook to shift his residence immediately to a nearest place to the School. If an opportunity is given to the petitioner’s ward by providing a seat in P.M. Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Vijayawada,^there is chance of the boy getting good education and it^would create a cause for upliftment of the entire family. It is only to encourage parents to send their wards to schools with^best infrastructure and training that the RTE Act has been enacted, allocating 25% seats to children belonging^tolower strata of the society. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, when a seat is kept vacant, this Court directs respondents 1 to 4 to consider feasibility of providing admission to son of the petitionerⁱⁿ P.M.Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Vijayawada, subject to petitioner shifting his residence immediately to a place within 5 KMs from the school and furnishing the said address^tothe

¶117

14

¶118

-P

¶119