Allowed

Rakesh Mahalik v. the Deputy Commissioner,Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Orissa HC9 Aug 2019WP(C)/11900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Orissa High Court allowed a minor's petition seeking admission in a Kendriya Vidyalaya under RTE. The Court quashed the school's rejection order based on a disputed distance measurement of 7.3 km versus the prescribed 5 km radius guideline. It directed the school to admit the student within 10 days, applying the correct geometric radius interpretation and citing promissory estoppel.

What did the court decide?

Directed opposite parties to admit the petitioner in Standard-I within 10 days and provide assistance for completion of studies under Rule 14 of RTE Rules, 2010.

Rakesh Mahalik Vs the Deputy Commissioner,Kendriya… — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 11900 of 2019

¶3

AFR

¶4

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

¶6

Rakesh Mahallick, ……… Petitioner

¶7

represented by his father guardian

¶8

-versus-

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, ……… Opp. Parties Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar and another

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Rath Advocate.

¶11

For Opp.Parties : Mr. H.K. Tripathy,

¶12

Advocate (O.P. No. 2)

¶13

P R E S E N T :

¶14

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI

¶15

Date of hearing: 07.08.2019 : Date of judgment : 09.08.2019

¶16

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, being a minor,

¶17

represented through his father guardian has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to admit him in Standard-I in Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, CRPF

¶18

¶19

Campus, Bhubaneswar from the academic session 2019-20, by quashing the order of rejection, as endorsed in Annexure-5, wherein reasons have been assigned for denial of admission that “(3) the distance found more than 5 Km (Google Search)” and “(4) More than 5 Km distance is one of the reason for denying admission under RTE category”.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that pursuant to notification issued by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), Bhubaneswar in the website inviting applications for admission in “KV Bhuabaneswar No.2” in Standard-I for the academic year 2019-20, the petitioner submitted his application through online along with testimonials on 17.03.2019 at 2.17 PM. Accordingly, he was provided with an Application Submission Code bearing No.190105140653133032. In the said application form, the date of birth has been indicated as 21.04.2013, gendermale, caste category-OBC (Non-Creamy Layer). Under the heading income group, it has been mentioned that “Do not belong to low income group” and under the heading of school details, it has been mentioned “KV Bhubaneswar

¶21

¶22

No.2”, Region-Bhubaneswar. It has been mentioned under

¶23

the headings sponsoring agency- CRPF, distance of the school from residence- less than or equal to 5 kms., and eligible for admission under RTE- ‘Yes’. The said application was duly scrutinized by the authority and a provisional list of shortlisted candidate for admission to Standard-I (RTE candidates) for the session 2019-20 subject to verification of documents was published, in which the name of the petitioner was found place at sl.no.36.

¶24

2.1 The first admission list for different categories

¶25

was notified in the website of KV Bhuabaneswar No.2 on 09.04.2019. The petitioner appeared with his father on the date fixed for verification of documents and for admission. Pursuant to the first list dated 09.04.2019, the petitioner could not take admission, as the list was restricted up to sl.no.30. Thereafter, second list was notified on 26.04.2019, wherein the name of the petitioner was found place at sl.no.6, and the petitioner’s father was telephonically intimated to appear before the Authorized Officer on the scheduled date for verification and admission of the

¶26

¶27

petitioner in Standard-I. The petitioner’s father appeared before the concerned officer and produced the original documents and also the “Google map” showing distance of the school from his residence as 4.63 km., but no admission was given to the petitioner by the school authority. On 01.05.2019, the petitioner’s father approached the Principal to know the reasons for refusing admission in writing. On receipt of the application of the petitioner, the Principal sent the same to one Mr. A.K. Samal, I/c Admission stating therein to put up with details. In response to the same, Mr. A.K. Samal, I/c Admission stated that the application of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds that “(3) the distance found more than 5 Km (Google Search)” and “(4) more than 5 Km distance is one of the reason for denying admission under RTE category”. Hence this application.

¶28

Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner contended that denial of admission to the petitioner on the basis of wrong assessment of “5 kms Radius” is absolutely misconceived one. The calculation made taking into consideration the distance of main road

¶30

¶31

from CRPF campus to BDA colony, Chandrashekharpur, where the petitioner resides, is contrary to the

¶32

advertisement/guidelines issued. Thereby, the reason for rejection is nothing but colourable exercise of power and to accommodate another candidate below the rank of the petitioner, as drawn on lottery for SEBC students under RTE category. Therefore, the process which has been adopted by the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. It is further contended that “5 kms Radius” distance, so far as other States are concerned, they adopt the Google search as a method, in absence of any specification as to how distance is to be calculated. Therefore, resorting to any other mode, except Google search, cannot have any justification. Thereby, the reasons endorsed in Annexure-5 dated 01.05.2019 cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that after the commencement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and in view of insertion of Article-21A of Constitution of India, the petitioner has every right to continue his study in the school in question because

¶33

¶34

the Act itself is beneficial legislation which goes in favour of the students, which cannot be taken away on a frivolous plea of distance, which is contrary to the advertisement/ guidelines issued.

¶35

To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , AIR 1978 SC 851.

¶36

Per contra, Mr. H.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties, specifically contended that the petitioner has obtained caste certificate from the competent authority on 07.03.2019 showing to be belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) and on receipt of the said certificate, he submitted online application on 17.03.2019 indicating caste category as OBC (Non-Creamy layer), which is contrary to the caste certificate issued in his favour, therefore, admission has been denied to him. It is further contended that the petitioner’s residence is situated at an actual distance of 7.3

¶37

¶38

km., which is beyond 5 km. Therefore, the authorities are well justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner to get admission into Standard-I for the session 2019-20. It is further contended that rejection of the application of the petitioner has been done in view of the fact that distance is found to be more than 5 kms (Google search), which is one of the reasons for denying admission under RTE category. Further, the petitioner described himself as OBC (NonCreamy layer), though he has received the certificate under SEBC category, thereby the authorities are justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for getting admission in Standard-I in KV Bhubaneswar No.2 for the session 2019-20. Furthermore, the petitioner has not approached this Court with a clean hand, for which the writ application is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶39

To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Chitta Ranjan Behera v. State of Odisha, 2016 (II) OLR 393, Subhadra Girl’s High School v. State of Odisha , 2017 (II) OLR 1, and the judgment of the Madurai Bench of

¶40

¶41

Madras High Court in the case of M. Mohan v. The Principal, KV, Thirupparankudam, Madurai , (W.P.(C) (MD) No.4069 of 2015, disposed of on 30.03.2015.

¶42

This Court heard Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. H.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

¶43

The facts as delineated above are not disputed. The KVS issued guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the session 2019-20 and onwards. In part-C thereof, the details of procedure for admission have been indicated, wherein clause-1 deals with publicity, clause-2-registration, clause-3-documents and clause-4 of the guidelines, which deals with method of admission in Class-I, being relevant is extracted hereunder:

¶44

“4. METHOD OF ADMISSION IN CLASS- I

¶45

Out of the available seats of fresh admission 15% will be reserved for SC and 7.5% will be reserved for ST. The short fall in the number of seats reserved for SC and ST, will be worked out after considering number of SC/ST children admitted under RTE quota.

¶46

¶47

(1) In first phase , 10 seats (out of 40 seats) in Class I per section are to be filled as per RTE Provisions (25% of seats) and these 10 seats will be filled by draw of lots from all applications of SC/ST/EWS/BPL/OBC (NonCreamy Layer) who are the resident of Neighborhood/Differently abled taken together.

¶48

(2) In second phase , remaining seats are to be filled as per existing Priority category system. The short fall in the seats reserved for SC/ST, if any shall be made good by admitting SC/ST applicants.

¶49

For example : In a single Section School 6 seats are reserved for SC and 3 Seats for ST (15% for SC and 7.5% for ST). Assuming that, 2 SC candidates, 1 ST candidate and 1 Differently Abled candidate are admitted under RTE in the lottery system in first phase, then available SC seats will be considered as 6-2 = 4 and ST seats will be 3-1 = 2. The left out registered candidates from SC and ST category will be considered as per order of Priority categories for admission. In this case the remaining 24 seats will be available for admission under order of Priority of Category.

¶50

Note:-1

¶51

a) In no case the seats reserved as per RTE will be de-reserved. b) The seats reserved for SC/ST may be interchanged, by interchanging SC seats to ST and vice- versa after 20th April.

¶52

c) If required numbers of candidates covered under RTE do not register in 1st spell of registration then a second notification may be given in the month of April.

¶53

d) The definition/eligibility criteria of Disadvantaged Group/Weaker Section/BPL/OBC (Non-creamy layer) will be as per the notification of the concerned State Governments.(The DC KVS RO Concerned may issue guidelines regarding BPL/EWS as per the latest notification of the concerned State Governments).

¶54

e) Admission test will not be conducted for Class I.

¶55

Note:-2

¶56

A. DEFINITION OF DISADVANTAGED GROUP

¶57

1. Child belonging to disadvantaged group means a child belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, the socially and educationally backward class or such other group having disadvantage owing to social, cultural, economic, geographical, linguistic, gender or such other factor as may be specified by the appropriate government, by notification (Section 2(d) of RTE Act).

¶58

2. Child with special needs and suffering from disability will be determined as per the provision mentioned in RTE Act 2009 or as defined by the concerned State Govt.

¶59

B. DEFINITION OF WEAKER SECTION

¶60

* Child belonging to weaker section means a child belonging to  such a parent or guardian (declared by a Court or a Statute) whose annual income is lower than the minimum limit specified by the appropriate government, by notification (Section 2(e)).

¶61

¶62

* The income limit regarding economically weaker sections will be applicable as notified by the State Govt. concerned.

¶63

B. DEFINITION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD & PROOF OF RESIDENCE (APPLICABLE FOR ADMISSION UNDER RTE ONLY)

¶64

Since Kendriya Vidyalayas are located at places with varied density of population, they have been categorized as follows for determining the limits of neighbourhood:-

¶65

1	Major cities	and Urban	5 kms. Radius
	area
	(All District	Hqrs. &
	Metros)
2	Places and	areas other	8 kms Radius
	than include	d in 1 above

¶66

Note:-3

¶67

1. Proof of residence shall have to be produced by all applicants.

¶68

2. A self-declaration in writing from the parent about distance may also be accepted to this effect, subject to verification.”

¶69

7. The petitioner, having satisfied the

¶70

requirements under clause-4, submitted his application form through online wherein it has been specifically indicated that distance of the school from his residence is less than or equal to 5 km, and the guidelines require that it should be “5 kms Radius”. In any case, the petitioner’s name found place at sl.no.36 in the first admission list notified on 09.03.2019. The petitioner could not take admission, as the list was restricted up to sl.no.30. Therefore, when the second list was notified on 26.04.2019, the petitioner’s

¶71

¶72

name, having been found place at sl.no.6, he had every likelihood to get himself admitted into Standard-I. But when admission was not given to him, on query being made on 01.05.2019, it was communicated to him that distance of his residence is more than 5 kms (Google search) and more than 5 kms is not the only reason for denying admission under RTE category. But what are other reasons for denial of admission have not been reflected in Annexure-5 dated 01.05.2019. Therefore, the sole question for consideration is whether the petitioner has been denied admission because of the reason that distance of his residence was found to be more than 5 kms (Google search) and if so whether the same is tenable in the eye of law.

¶73

Under Sub-clause-B of Clause-4, the distance

¶74

in major cities and urban area has been indicated “5 kms Radius” not “only 5 kms”. The contention raised by Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner that “5 kms Radius” if taken into consideration, which is well within the limitation of distance prescribed under the guidelines, and by misconstruing such provision, the rejection on the ground of

¶75

¶76

more than 5 kms, the authorities have committed illegality and irregularity in not giving admission to the petitioner in Standard-I in KV Bhubaneswar No.2. The distance of 4.63 kms has been determined on the basis of (Google search) and on the basis of the map attached to the writ petition as Annexure-4. If that would be taken into consideration, then it would be within “5 kms Radius” as per the guidelines issued by the opposite parties. But Mr. H.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that on request of the parents, two of the persons, namely, B.S. Behera and S.K. Biswal went to the residence of the petitioner from KV Bhubaneswar No.2, CRPF Campus to LIG, BDA colony, Chandrashekharpur, to assess the distance by shortest route through a motor bike and found that to and fro distance is 14.6 kms (one way 7.3 kms). Thereby, the distance is more than 5 kms.

¶77

In view of the anomalies with regard to

¶78

measurement of distance available on record, this Court took into consideration Sub-clause-B of Clause-4 of the guidelines issued by the KVS where the distance factor has

¶79

¶80

been considered on the basis of “5 km Radius”. There is no ambiguity that the distance has to be measured on the basis of “5 km Radius”.

¶81

BREET, M.R. while considering the “cardinal

¶82

rule” in Lion Insurance Association v. Tucker , (1883-

¶83

12 QBD 176, p.186 held that “whenever you have to construe a statute or document you do not construe it according to the mere ordinary general meaning of the words, but according to the ordinary meaning of the words as applied to the subject matter with regard to which they are used”.

¶84

Similar view has also taken in Re. Bidie (deceased) v. General Accident Fire and Life

¶85

Assurance Corporation Ltd. , (1948) 2 All ER 995, page998, Captain Subash Kumar v. Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Deptt ., AIR 1991 SC 1632 : 1991 (2) SCC 449.

¶86

Therefore, when it is said that words are to be

¶87

understood first in their natural, ordinary or popular sense,

¶88

¶89

what is meant is that the words must be ascribed that natural, ordinary or popular meaning which they have in relation to the subject matter with reference to which and the context in which they have been used in the statute.

¶90

The words of common use are generally to be construed according to their natural, plain and ordinary signification. Therefore, the word used in Sub-clause-B of Clause-4 with regard to the factum that the KVS established Kendriya Vidyalayas located at places with varied density of population and as such they have been categorized for determining the limits of neighborhood, so far as headquarters is concerned, “5 kms Radius” has been specified. In order to have a better understanding and clarity of the word “Radius”, this Court has taken into consideration and help of dictionaries to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning attached to the said word.

¶91

In Cambridge English Dictionary , it has

¶92

been defined as:-

¶93

“(the length of) a straight line joining the centre of a circle to its edge of the centre of a sphere to its surface.”

¶94

¶95

In Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary ,

¶96

Radius means:-

¶97

“a straight line between the centre of a circle and any point on its outer edge; the length of this line.”

¶98

As per Collins Dictionary , the word “Radius”

¶99

means-

¶100

“1. The radius around a particular point is the distance from it in any direction.

¶101

2. The radius of a circle is the distance from its centre to its outside edge.”

¶102

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary ,

¶103

“Radius” means:-

¶104

“1: a line segment extending from the center of a circle or sphere to the circumference or bounding surface. 2a: the bone on the thumb side of the human forearmalso : a corresponding part of vertebrates above fishes.

¶105

b: the third and usually largest vein of an insect's wing 3a: the length of a radiusa truck with a short turning radius b: the circular area defined by a stated radius c: a bounded or circumscribed area 4: a radial part 5: the distance from a center line or point to an axis of rotation”

¶106

In Free Dictionary , “radius” has been

¶107

defined to mean:-

¶108

“1. Abbr. r or rad. Mathematics

¶109

a. A line segment that joins the center of a circle with any p oint on its circumference.

¶110

b. A line segment that joins the center of a sphere with any point on its surface.

¶111

¶112

c. A line segment that joins the center of a regular polygon with any of its vertices.

¶113

d. The length of any such line segment.

¶114

2. A circular area measured by a given radius: every family within a radius of 25 miles of the city center.

¶115

3. A bounded range of effective activity or influence: the op erating radius of a helicopter.

¶116

4. A radial part or structure, such as a mechanically pivoted arm or the spoke of a wheel.

¶117

5. Anatomy

¶118

a. A long, prismatic, slightly curved bone in humans, the sh orter and thicker of the two forearm bones, locatedon the lat eral side of the ulna.

¶119

b. A similar bone in many other vertebrates.”

¶120

On considering the meaning of the word

¶121

“Radius”, as defined in different dictionaries indicated above,

¶122

would go to show that Radius is a straight line drawn from the centre of a circle to any point of the circumference. Its length is half of the diameter of that circle, or is the space between the centre and the circumference. The centre for measurement from which the Radius would shoot was not required to be located in the middle of the space occupied by a public market, which is usually not a square but some other geometrical figure, as a parallelogram or triangle; for the space between the centre and the external boundaries would have to be included in the length of the distance, and

¶123

this would shorten that length.

¶124

¶125

The term “Radius” means a “Straight line

¶126

drawn or extended from the centre of a circle to its periphery”, for example an agreement not to practice dentistry within a Radius of ten miles of the town means from the centre of the town; the town as a whole not being suitable as the centre implied by the term “Radius”.

¶127

Applying the above meaning of the word “Radius” to the present context, distance between the school and residence of the petitioner has to be within 5 kms Radius from the centre, i.e., KV Bhubaneswar No.2, would be taken into as center, which a straight line drawn or extended from that place of the circle to its periphery. Therefore, the distance between the school and the petitioner’s residence should be within the “5 kms Radius”, in fact it is 4.63 km, as per Google search, which is within the 5 Km Radius. Therefore, any other mode of measurement of distance is prohibited, meaning thereby, the distance calculated, by going through motorbike, ascertaining as 7.3 kms, cannot have any justification. Thereby, this Court rejects such measurement, as the

¶128

¶129

guidelines specifically make it clear that distance would be

¶130

“5 kms Radius”. If “Radius” would be taken into

¶131

consideration, then in that case, the measurement made by the Google search, which has been furnished in Annexure-4 making it 4.63 kms, is well within the Radius of 5 kms. Apart from the same, the petitioner’s assertion at para 9 of the writ application that the measurement has to be done on the basis of “Google Search” which has been followed in other States, there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit to that extent. In absence of denial, the pleadings made by the petitioner are to be treated uncontroverted and admitted. In view of such admitted fact, the reason assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot have any

¶132

justification.

¶133

Mr. H.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite parties contended that rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground of distance of more than 5 kms is one of the reason under the RTE category and other reasons, for which the admission has been denied, have not been explained in Annexure-5, but have been reflected in

¶134

¶135

the counter affidavit. The other reasons denying admission, which have been assigned in the counter affidavit, cannot be taken into consideration, reason being Annexure-5, in which reasons of rejection have been endorsed, does not disclose such reasons, save and except the distance of residence of the petitioner was found to be more than 5 kms (Google search).

¶136

15. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.

¶137

Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 the apex Court held

¶138

as follows:

¶139

“Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.

¶140

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old.”

¶141

Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the apex

¶142

Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851, held as follows:

¶143

¶144

“ …… when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.

¶145

Similar view has also been taken by this Court in various judgments.

¶146

The contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the petitioner was not selected, cannot have any justification, in view of the fact that considering the materials available on record and produced before the authority through online application, the merit list was drawn up in which the petitioner’s name found place at sl.no.36 and in first phase, 30 students were admitted and in second phase, the petitioner was called upon for verification of documents and admission, and after that his application was rejected on the ground that the distance of his residence was found to be more than 5 kms (Google search). Therefore, any other ground which has been taken in the counter affidavit and also in course of

¶147

¶148

argument, cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, the same is hit by principle of estoppels.

¶149

The opposite parties, having selected the petitioner and called upon him to appear for verification of documents and admission, should not have rejected his candidature on the basis of distance factor, as they are estopped from making any further ground to justify their action reflected in the counter affidavit in this proceeding.

¶150

The principle of promissory estoppels has been considered by the apex Court in Union of India and others v. M/s.Anglo Afghan Agencies etc. , AIR 1968 SC 718, Chowgule & Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 2021, M/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 SC 621, Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 2414, Bharat Singh and others

¶151

¶152

v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and

¶153

many other subsequent decisions also.

¶154

Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Dr. (Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University , 2014 (I) OLR 226 and in Rajanikanta Priyadarshy v. Utkal University , 2015 (I) OLR 212.

¶155

The reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the opposite parties on the decisions of this Court rendered in Chitta Ranjan Behera and Subhadra Girl’s High School (supra) wherein this Court held that person seeking equity must do equity and that it is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objectives that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigations. Both the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for opposite parties, have no application to the present context as the same are distinguishable.

¶156

Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in M. Mohan (supra), but the said case was decided only on the

¶157

¶158

distance factor as has been specified as 03 kms. But on measurement made by the school authority with the petitioner’s motor cycle, it came to know that distance was 6.4 kms and not 03 kms, therefore rejected the claim of the petitioner therein. The fact of the said case is distinguishable to the present one because here the factum of distance has been specifically mentioned in the guidelines issued by the KVS as “5 kms Radius”. As a matter of fact, it is not the distance of 5 kms simplicitor, rather it is distance of “5 kms Radius”. Therefore, in view of the law discussed above, the judgment in M. Mohan mentioned supra is also distinguishable from the present context.

¶159

Mr. H.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that since the academic session has already begun, in the event the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, it may not be possible to get him admitted into the course. But this contention cannot be sustained in the eye of law, in view of the fact that if wrong has been committed by the authority, for that purpose the petitioner cannot be denied to get admission into the course,

¶160

¶161

particularly when the course has begun only in the month of April, 2019, and only five months have lapsed with the intervening period of one month of summer vacation.

¶162

Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of the Court that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 38 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Central Government framed Rules called “ The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010” . Rule-14 of the said Rule, reads as follows:-

¶163

“14. Extended period for admission – (1) Extended period of admission be six months from the date of commencement of the academic year of a school.

¶164

(2) Where a child is admitted in a school after the extended period, he shall be eligible to complete studies with the help of special training, as determined by the head teacher of the school.”

¶165

In view of the aforesaid Rules, if the

¶166

admission would be given to a child after extended period of six months from the commencement of academic year of the school, obligation will be on the part of the school to make him/her eligible to complete studies with the help of special

¶167

¶168

training, as determined by the head teacher of the school. In the present case, the said six months period has not been elapsed. Therefore, if the petitioner is admitted into Standard-I, then in view of Rule-14, as referred above, he can be able to complete the study with the help of special training given by the head teacher of the school. Thereby, no prejudice would be caused either to the petitioner or to the institution.

¶169

In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶170

circumstances, as well as the settled position of law discussed above, the reason as endorsed in Annexure-5 dated 01.05.2019 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner

¶171

on the ground of distance found more than 5 kms (Google search), cannot sustain in the eye 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 quashed. The opposite parties are directed to give admission to the petitioner 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

¶172

¶173

of this judgment. It is made clear that if the seats are filled up, 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 in Standard-I for the academic session 2019-20 by providing all assistance to him in compliance of Rule-14 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010.

¶174

The writ petition is thus allowed. However,

¶175

there shall be no order as to cost.

¶176

………………………..

¶177

Dr.B.R.Sarangi, J.

¶178

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9^th August, 2019/Ashok/GDS

Rakesh Mahalik v. the Deputy Commissioner,Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Mahalik v. the Deputy Commissioner,Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dillip Charan Barik Vs Board of Secondary Education, Orissa

Stalini Das Vs Board of Secondary Education, Orissa

Chakradhar Giri Vs Idcol,Kalinga Iron

Modern Oxford Public School Vs State of Odisha

Sabitrilata Sethi Vs Board of Secondary Education,Cuttack

Pranita Nayak Vs State of Orissa