Disposed¶8

Vijay Malik v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Apr 2026CWP/10167/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vijay Malik v. Union of India and others; CWP-10167-2026; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; readmission Kendriya Vidyalaya Rohtak Class IX; admission policy Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 2026-2027; sanctioned strength 90 versus actual strength 104; no vacancy; withdrawal after familial feud and bereavements; paramount consideration welfare of minor child; direction to grant admission subject to formalities; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to grant admission to the petitioner's minor son in Class IX in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rohtak, subject to fulfillment of all requisite formalities, forthwith. ¶8

Vijay Malik Vs Union of India and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to grant admission to the petitioner's minor son in Class IX in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rohtak, subject to fulfillment of all requisite formalities, forthwith.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents No.2 to 4 should be directed to grant admission to the petitioner's minor son in Class IX in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rohtak, notwithstanding that no vacancy exists under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan admission policy for the academic session 2026-2027.

¶1

Court's answer

As 104 students are already accommodated in Class IX against a sanctioned strength of 90 students, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents No.2 to 4 if one additional student is permitted to be admitted in the School.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and bearing in mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor child, the respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to grant admission to the petitioner's minor son in Class IX in the School, subject to fulfillment of all requisite formalities, forthwith.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-10167-2026, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided April 28, 2026 (Kuldeep Tiwari, J., oral): The petitioner, who became sole guardian of his minor son after the deaths of his father (05.05.2025) and wife (07.05.2025) amid an inter se familial feud, had withdrawn the child from PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rohtak on 23.08.2025 while he was in Class VIII, obtaining the School Leaving Certificate and Transfer Certificate. On resolution of the disputes, his request for the child's readmission in Class IX was declined, the respondents No.2 to 4 contending that against a policy strength of 90 students (45 per section), 104 were already accommodated (89 promoted plus 15 repeaters), leaving no vacancy. Held: since 104 students were already being accommodated against a sanctioned strength of 90, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents No.2 to 4 by admitting one additional student; accordingly, bearing in mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor child, the respondents No.2 to 4 were directed to grant admission to the petitioner's minor son in Class IX, subject to fulfillment of all requisite formalities, forthwith. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

118

¶3

CWP-10167-2026 Date of Decision : April 28, 2026

VIJAY MALIK

-PETITIONER

V/S

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶8

-RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶10

Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondent No.1- U.O.I.

¶12

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶13

¶14

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The genesis of the present writ petition lies in an inter se familial feud between the petitioner and his in-laws, which has impelled the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the respondent No.3 to reconsider his request for readmission of his minor son in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as “the School”), which request has been declined.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father passed away on 05.05.2025 and, within two days thereof, unfortunately the demise of petitioner’s wife also occurred on 07.05.2025, leaving the petitioner as the sole guardian of his minor son. It is further submitted that, in the aftermath of these unfortunate events, disputes arose between the petitioner and his in-laws, and the latter attempted to abduct the

¶17

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

¶19

CWP-10167-2026

¶20

minor child. Owing to the resultant apprehension and in order to secure the safety and welfare of his son, the petitioner withdrew him from the School on 23.08.2025, while he was studying in Class VIII, by obtaining the School Leaving Certificate and Transfer Certificate.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that the withdrawal of the child from the School was occasioned by circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, and solely in the interest of the child’s safety and welfare. It is submitted that the disputes have since been resolved and the petitioner, having overcome the bereavements, approached the School seeking readmission of his son in Class IX, however, the said request has been declined.

¶22

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4, in the written statement, has opposed the prayer for readmission. It is averred that after obtaining the School Leaving Certificate, the petitioner admitted his son in another institution, where he completed the academic session of Class VIII. It is further averred that the number of seats available for admission to Class IX is limited in terms of the admission policy of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for the academic session 2026-2027. As per the said policy, the strength is 45 students per section, i.e. 90 students in total. However, the present strength already stands at 104 students, comprising 89 students promoted from Class VIII of the same School and 15 students who are repeating Class IX. It is thus contended that no vacancy exists for fresh admission in the current academic session.

¶23

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s minor

¶24

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶25

¶26

CWP-10167-2026

¶27

son was a student of Class VIII in the School prior to his withdrawal, nor is it disputed that such withdrawal was occasioned by the circumstances narrated by the petitioner. It is further not in dispute that the child has successfully passed Class VIII.

¶28

Though the sanctioned strength for Class IX is 90 students, it is evident from the stand of the respondents No.2 to 4 that 104 students are presently being accommodated in Class IX in the School. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents No.2 to 4 if one additional student is permitted to be admitted in the School.

¶29

Accordingly, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, and bearing in mind the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor child, the respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to grant admission to the petitioner’s minor son in Class IX in the School, subject to fulfillment of all requisite formalities, forthwith.

¶30

The instant writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(KULDEEP TIWARI) April 28, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶32

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Vijay Malik v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Malik v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Kumar Vs Director, Pec( Deemed University), Chandigarh

Tilok Tirath Vidyavati Chuttani Charitable Trust and Chuttani Medical Centre Vs Union of India and Others

Gurcharan Singh Vs Additioinal Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs P.O.,Central Govt. Indl. Tribunal Anr.

Harmail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Liquidator Cum Additional Registrar and Another Vs Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Others