Dismissed

Shagun Chaurasiya v. The Union of India

Telangana HC21 Jun 2022WP/11976/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan's decision to raise the Class-I admission age from 5 to 6 years in 2022-23, relying on Nepal 2020. The Court held that admitting younger children would disrupt class balance and create legal inconsistencies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no admission directed; no order as to costs.

Shagun Chaurasiya Vs The Union of India — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11976 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Shagun Chaurasiya, through his next friend and Natural father Krishna Kumar, Occ. lnspector of lncome Tax, Aged. 5 years I months 20 days, R/o. Quarter No. 14-F GPRA Quarters, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

1. Pratyush Kumar Ghadia, through his next friend and Natural father Uddhab Charan Ghadia, Occ. Senior Statistical Officer, Aged. 5 years 9 months 16 days, R/o. Quarter No. 101-F GPRA Quarters, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

1. Kashish Raj, through his next friend and Natural father Gautam Kumar Pandit, Occ. Executive Assistant in Central GST and Customs, Aged. 5^years 4 months 24 days, Fl/o. Quarter No. 12-C GPRA Quafiers, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

1. Aaron Kumar Joshua, through his next friend and Natural father Kapil Kumar, Occ. Stenographer Gr. ll in lncome Tax Department, Aged. 5 years 2 days, Rl/o. Quarter No. 80-D GPRA Quarters Gachibowli, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

1. Bhanvitha Bathula, through her next friend and Natural father Bhaskara Rao Bathula, Occ. Sorting Assistant in Postal Department, Aged. 5 years 3 months 30 days, R/o. 8-40/4/1/A Road No. 2A, Hemanagar Colony, Boduppal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

1. Shreya Yadav, through her next friend and Natural father Amrit Singh, Occ. Superintendent in Central GST AND CustomsAged. 5^years 3 months 17 days, Rl/o. Quarter No. 103-A GPRA Quarters, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

1. Guwa Darshika, through her next friend and Natural father Guwa Sammaiah, Occ. Sorting Assistant in Postal Department, Aged. 5^years 3 months¹⁷ days, Rl/o. Quarter No. 105 A GPRA Quarters Gachibowli, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

1. Siya Upadhyay, through her next friend and Natural father Gaurav Upadhyay, Occ. lnspector of lncome Tax, Aged. 5^years, 2 days, Rl/o. Quarter No. 104-F GPRA Quarters Gachibowli, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District ...PETTTTONER(S)

¶16

1 The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Ministry of Education, C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 1 10001

¶17

AND

¶18

¶19

2 The State o'Telangana,^{Rep. by its PrincipleSecretary'School Education} o"p"rir"n],^{Telan[anaSecretdriat, Hyderabad-500022'}

¶20

3 Kendriya ViCyalaya^{Sangathan, An Autonomous Body under Ministry.of} EJr.J{lon <j6rerfiment^{ot rnoii, through its Commissioner'New Delhi-} 1 1001 6,

¶21

4 KendriyaVdyalaya,locatedatGachibowli,Repbyitsprincipal'Gachibowli' Ranga RecdY^District.

¶22

5 Central Ad'risory^{Board of Education. nep} !y^{rll S9gle]?ry'# tt'4inistryof} EJrcrtion, C Wnq,^{ShastriBhawan, New Delhi} -¹¹⁰⁰⁰¹

¶23

6 Central Board^{of Secondary Education, Rep by its C-hairp^erson'# Shiksha} '1 100911'

¶24

-C"rmunitv Cenire, Preet vihar, Delhi -

¶25

K;;i;,Z

¶26

..RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstancesr;tatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theFlighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an order^{or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of writ of} Mandamus or^{atty other appropriatewrit'}

¶28

(i) To is:;ue writ of^{mandamus or any appropriatewrlt' order or direction} theretry declaring^{the impugned admission criteria 2022-23of} respondent No.3^{KendriyaVidyalaya Sangathanto the extentit lays} downminimum6yearsofageforadmissionofachildinclass-lis arbitrary, discriminatory,^{unjust, unreasonable'vo ition of fundamental} righttoeducationofpetitioneraSguaranteedunderArticlesl4,2land 21-A of the^{constitution of lndia read with the provisions of Telangana} Education Act, 1982^{and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory} Educ;ation^{Act, 2009 and quash the same'}

¶29

(ii) issuo any^{appropriatewrit' order or directionthereby directingthe} respondent No.3^{KendriyaVidyalaya Sangathan to reframe the} admission criteria^{in 2022-23 in accordancewith law}

¶30

(iii) issu3 any appropriate^{writ, order or direction thereby directingthe} resp'ondent No.3^{Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to permitthe} peti'.ioners to apply for admission^{in class I in academic year 2022-23 '}

¶31

¶32

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased in the} above circumstance it is therefore^prayed this Hon'ble court^{may receive this} documents as additional material^papers.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} 'direct the respondent No.3 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to^permit the petitioners to apply for admission in class-l in academic^year 2022-23.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI^{YAK.ARAPU SHEELU}

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^{1 & 5: NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO} (ASSGI)

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent^{No. 2: GP FOR SCHOOLEDUCATION}

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.3 & 4: SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARMA,} SC FOR KVS

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6:^{SMTCHAYADEVI, SC FOR CBSE}

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

l'HI'- IlOr.-'Bl-E Dr..IUSl-lCE G. ll,\l)ll,\ I{ \NI \'ltll' PETI'I'ION No.l I 976 OF 2022

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners to issue rvrit ol mandamus de,:laring the admission criteria tbr the acadernic year 2022-23 of respondent No. 3, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to the extent it laid down minimt.m 6 years of age for admission of a child in Class-I, as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of fundamental right to education of petitioners ari guaranteed under Articles 14, 2l anti 2l-A ol the Constitution^'ead with the provisions of Telangana Educatior.r Act 1982. and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 and to quash the sanre.

¶48

He:ard Sri Y. Sheelu, leamed counsel lbr the petitioners and Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No.3 and 4.

¶49

3.1^'fhe learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parents of the petitioner children were working in Central Government Departments and were residing at Central Govemrnent Staff Quarters at Gachibowli. They were non-locals. They were planning to admit their children who were above 5 years old in Class-l in Kendriya Vidyalaya,

¶50

DLGRR,J IYP No.11976ol2D2 7

¶51

Gachibowli^{locatedin the prer.r.risesof Central GoverntnentStaffQuat1ers} at Gachibowli'^{All their chiidren were eligiblefbr Class-l admissionas per} VidyalaYa^{Sangathantbr the Year 2022-23'bttt} the^{guidelinesof KendriYa} their^{children were deniedadmission due to the arbitraryguidelinesof} KcnclriYa^{V iclYalaYaSangathanfbr the Year 2022-23'}

¶52

3.2^{The petitionerchildren most of thenr had studied LKG'UKGbY} 202l-2022^{in Private} schools.^On the^{erlcl ol' the academicYear} 24-02-2022,^{the resPondent No'3had revisedthe guidelinesfor the} 1br acadetntc Yeat 2022-2o2|whereintheeligibleminimumagecriteria adurissiot-t^{tt-ttoClass-l was changedfrom 5 Years to6 years as on} 3 1"^Marcl.r '^{The adrnisstonsfor Classl in most of the privateschoolqin the} State^{were alreadycompleted by the end of February' 2022'Thepetitioners} were^{waiting for the notification of the Kendriya Vidyalayasfor the} acaclemic^{year2022-2023' On 24'r' February 2022'the Kendriya Vidyalaya} had^{uploaded guidelines on the porlal kvsanghatan'nic'in' just 4 days} betble^{the adr.nissionprocess whichstadedfrom28-02-2022' whereinthey} had^{changedthe child admission criteriafor Class-l tionr 5 years to 6} years.^{As per the guidelinesof 2022-23'theadrnission onlineregistration} would^{start tiom 2g,r,February,2022to2l''Mafch,2022' The guidelines} of 2022_23would^{state that ,,as per the mandare of NationalEducation}

¶53

¶54

¶55

Dt CRR.J ll P .'o.1 1976 oj :tDl

¶56

Policy (NEP) 11020, entry age for Class-l has been revisecl to 6 plus years rv.e.f. academic session 2022-23". The National Eclucation policy 2020 had not mandlted any such change in age fiom 5 years to 6 years lbr admission criteria in Class- I . In fact, the issue of what shoLrld be the correct age for school going children for Class-l had not bcen discusseil in the entire National Edr.rcation Policy 2020. NEp had not rnade anv changes to the age ofschool going children 1br Class-1. It had.ot clisturbed the status quo i.e., above 5 years criteria for admission in Class-l rvhich rvas being inrplemr:nted by all the private schools affiliated to cenrral Boarcl of Secondary Ecucation (CBSE) and schools affiliated to State and being implernented by the respondent No.3. The NEp, 2O2O did nor manclate nor confer any p()wers on respondent No.3 to issue guiclelines to arbitrarily change the e|gible age criteria for admission in Class-l tiom 5 years to 6 years. The respondent No.3 was an autonomous body antl not a statutory authority. Therefore, the guidelines issued by responclent No.3 tbr the academic yea:2022-23 did not have any statutory force.

¶57

3.3 Section 7 of the Telangana Education Act, l9fi2 als<l states tl.rat a child who had completed the age of 5 years shoultl not be de-niecl admission in schools. NEP, 2020 under part I School llclucation had envisaged crtation of infl'astructr.rre (pre-schools) fbr chilr.lren ol- the age l

¶58

Dt.CRRJ .1 w? No I 1976 ot)0):

¶59

to 6. Afier cornpletion^{of pr-e-school, the childrenwould moveto Class-l'} From the tirne NEP^{was formulated (in July 2020) till date, i.e. for the past} two years, the^{respondentNo.3 nor the Ministry of Education had created} ar.ry infi.astructure^{ior pre-schools. while on paperthey sought to createa} rosy picture, in^{reality thingsrernained wl'rere they were i'e' adrnissionin} KV would starl^{fl.orn class-I. ln such a scenario the respondentNo.3 could} not adopt the^{rnanclateol 6 plusyeat's,wherl it had not lulfilledthe} conclition^{precedentto it i.e., creatiorlof infrastructurefbr pre-primary} education.^{'l-here were no pre-prirnaryclasses in respondent No 3 or} respondent No.4,^{KV schools'}

¶60

3.4 No study^{had been done by respondentNo'3 before makingthe} change in age^{as 6 plus. Thechange was not basedon any study which} could establish^{that 6 plus and not 5 plus wasthe comect age to admit} children in Class-I.^{The 'REPORTOF THE COMMITTEEON PRE-} PRIMARY AND^{PRE-SCHOOLEDUCATION IN DELHI" ( Ashok} Ganguly Committee)^{constituted by Delhi High Court in WP No' 12490 of} 2006 vide order dated^{7-3-2007,on comparative analysisof practicesin} various countries^{and variousstates in lndiaarrivedat the recommendation} of 5 plus^years fbr^{admission to class-I. Further the IITs and NII's had} done away withthe^{minir.num age of l7 plus for rnost courses. It would}

¶61

,i Dt_CRR.J lt,P No 976 ot )t)t)

¶62

further strengthen the case of the petitioners that when a child was eligible for admissior. to Ilr/NlT/Medicar at the age of l7 plus, why rnake him or her'"vait for 'xe more year. The change in age was made without giving sufficient time to parents to make alternate arrangements rbr their children. No comment; were invited from efibcted parties nor any oublic discussion was held.

¶63

3.5 In private schools affiriated to both CBSE and Srate Boards. rhe age of entry to class-l remained 5 plus years fbr the acatlernic year 202223. Most of the good private schoors of Hyderabacr had closed their admission by February last week. Thus the parents of the petitioner children could not admit their wards in good private schools even if they wanted to. Admitting them in private schools was not a practical solution. They would ,:harge fbes in lakhs, which was unaffbr<iable lbr the parents o1' the petitioner children as they were Croup B, Group C Government employees. l'he.e was no tuition fee charged in KVs tbr boys fi-o m Class-l to class-Vlll and lor girls fiom class-l to class-Xll. Il the petitioner children "vere^{admitted in privateschoolsthey woLrlclincur huge anrounts} as school fee. Due to the arbitrary action ol the responclent No.i, the parents of petitioner children were forced to admit their children in Class-l in private schools or wasting one year of the chilclren. As such the

¶64

Dt GRR..t tt P \o l19t'6 ol )t)):

¶65

¶66

petitioner childrerr would bc put to a disadvantage ol one year as colnparecl to children boru in the satne year who had now colrpleted 5^{plus years and} could get adrnission in private schools. Most of^{tlie Coverntnent} con-rpetitive exams rnandate nraxirnutn^{age criteria fbr writing exatlrs' l-he} petitioner children would lose one year for^{no tault of theirs. The palents} of the petitioner children sent^{arepresentationth|ough enrail dated} 25-2-2022 to the respondent No.3. As there^{was no response fl'onlthe} respondent No.3 to resolve the issue,^{the petitionerstlled this u'rit petition}

¶67

3.6 The learr.recl counsel fbr thc^{petitionersturlher subnlitted that} the admission criteria 1br the centrally^{estabtishedschools such as Air} F-orce School, Begunrpct, Hyderabad, Anry^{Public School,Bollarum,} Hydeiabad and Vikram Sarabai Space^{Centre,Thiruvar.rthapuram,Kerala} tbr the academic year 2022-23,^{wherein the admissionage for Class-l was} prescribed as 5 years as on 3l-3-2022. He also^{filed the docket order dated} 16-03-2022 in WP (C) No. 3667 of^{2022 on the file of HighCourt of} Delhi.

¶68

4.1 The learned Standing Counsel for^{the respondents No.3 and4} submitted that Kendriya Vidyalaya^{Sangathanwas an autononlous} organization registered under the Societies^{RegistrationAct, 1860 fully}

¶69

'l lr't;RR,.i 1' .'. I te'L ot :i::

¶70

t'inanced by ir4inistry of Education, Covernment of India with an ol.rjective to cater to the educational needs of children of transferable Central Government Employees including Defence personnel by providing common prc,gramme of education to develop Vidyalavas as model in the context of national role of Indian education, and to iniriate and promote experimentation in the field of education in collaboration with Central Board of Secondary Education, National Council of Educational Research & Training and allied bodies to promote national integration. The respondents would run a chain of Kendriya Vidyalayas more than 1247 including tlrree abroad, five Zonal lnstitutes and 25 Regional Olllces spread acrc,ss the country. The Chairman of the Kenclriya Viclyalaya Sangathan uias the Union Minister of Ministry of Education and ViceChairperson was the Additional Secretary of the Department of School Education ,t Literacy, Ministry of Education, and Co'rernment ol India. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was headed by the Commissioner. fhe policy decisions of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan rvere taken by the Board of Governors consisting of eminent educationists and adrrlinistrators from all over the country. The service conditions ol Kenclriya Viclyalaya Sangathan employees were governed by the education Code of Kenclriya Vidyalayas in vogue. In the functioning of the Sangathan, Boarcl of

¶71

E i P^\ia llt1. ol )t)::

¶72

Governors were^{constituted to approvethe policy of the Sangathan.-[he} Comrnissioner of the^{KendriyaVidyalaya Sangathan was the Chief} Adrrilistrator^{ar.rd Chief Executiveto implement the policies approved by} the Board of Governors'^{The recurringand non-recurring expendituresof} Kendriya^{Viclyalaya Sangathan were fully financedby the Governmentof} India (MinistrY^{of Education).}

¶73

4.2TheNational^{Education Policywas framed in 1986and modified} \n 1992. More^{than three decadeshad passedsince the previous Policy'} During this^{period, signiticantchanges had taken placein the country'} society, economy^{and the world at large' It was in this context that tlle} education^{sector lleeded to gear itselftowardsthe demandsof tlte 2l''} Century^{and the needed of the people and the country Keepingthe} changing^{needs of the society & globalscenario' National Education} Policy^{of lndia 2020 was approved by the Union Cabinetof India on 29'h} July,^{2020' lt outlined the vision of new education system of India'The} Ministry^{of Education' Govenrment of India had introduced NEP'2020} which^{envisagedthat the extentl0+2 structurein school education would} be^{rr.rodified with a new pedagogical curiculumrestructuring5+3+3+4} covering^{the ages3 years to l8 years'}

¶74

DI ORR-J fi P lto llr;4 ol lt): )

¶75

¶76

Level	Class	;\gc Group
['ourrrlatiorra]	AnganrvadiPre-School/Balt atikir	j-6r'ears
FoundatioLal	Classt& II	afs 6-E ye
l)reparatoly	Classlll&V	S-iIyears
\4iddle	ClassVI& VII	Il-14years
Secondary	ClassIX& XII I	I4-18years

¶77

4.3 Th,: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan hacl aclopted the National Education Pc'licy, 2020 and accordingly issued cuiderines fbr Admission f.om the acirdemic year 2022-23 & onwards. 'rhe eligibility criteria ot' minimum and maxirnum age for Registration fbr aamission to class-r ancr above had been modiflecl by Kenclriya Vidyalaya San,qathan as per the mandate of \ationar Ecrucation poricy 2020. The entr.y age fbr class_r hac.r been reviserr to 6 prus years and maximum age as ri years. As per the mandare of Narional Education poricy,2020enrry age fbr Crass-r had been revised to (r prus years'lvith ell'ect liom academic session 2022-23. The other generar guiderines with regard to the reservations, mode of serection of candidates were un_changed, except the minimunt age criteria for admission to crass-I' These admission guiderines were appricable in all Kendriya^.r'idyalayas tlrroughout the country, except fbr Kendriva

¶78

DI,GRR.J tYP No.I1976 ol')(D2

¶79

¶80

Vidyalayas located abroad and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Kendriya Vidyalaya, President Estate, New Delhi.

¶81

4.4 TotalT2Kendriya Vidyalayas (70 single shift and 2 in double (second shift)) were functioning under Hyderabad region viz. Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The admission^{guidelines for 2022-23 including the} age criteria was legal, valid and in conformity^{with NEP, 2020.The plea of} the petitioner"s seeking permission to tnake^{application with 5 plusage for} entry level was without any sustainability^{and contraryto the admission} guidelines 2022-23 issued by KVS and^{prayedto reject the same}

¶82

4.5 The learned^{Standing Counsel for the respondentssubmitted the} ftnal orders^{of the judgment of tl.re High of Delhi in Aarin through her} next friend^{and natural father Sh' PawanKumar & Ors Vs' Kendriya} \ridyalaya^{Sangathan & Ors't stating that it was decicledon lt-4-2022in} their'lavour.

¶83

I'erused^{the recorcland the juclgnrentol the Iligh Court of Delhi} relied^{by both the lear.nedcounsel. The said judgment is also on the satne} issue..l.he^{said writ petitionwas also filed assailing the adfirissioncriteria} fbr the^{acaclemic year 2022-23issued by the KVS on 24-2-2022' which}

¶84

'^{ssc onlincDcl 1008}

¶85

¶86

DT.GRR.J ll P No. tlY76 ol )ltl)

¶87

prescribed the rninimum^{age for admission of a student in class-l as 6}

¶88

years or above. The High Court^{ofDelhiobserved that:}

¶89

"20.^{Having givenmy thoughtful consideration to the} submissions ofthe^{parties,eventhough I find merit in the} peritioners' plea that this^{changein age criteriabrought} about by the impugned^{guidelineson 24.02-2022 tvas a} little late in the day,^{the fact remainsthat thesamctloes} not in any manner^{debar the petitioners liom seel<it.rg} arlmission in KVS, but it^{onlypostpones thoir rightto} s,:ek admission in KVS to^{the nextacademic year. The} r:spon<lents have urged that this^{change was necessitatecl} 1r ensure that the NEP tbrmulated after^extcLrsive r;onsultations with the experts is made applicable all rcross lhc country. at the earliest.

¶90

No dor.rbt, the policy which was tbnnulated in 2020 is yet to be implemented across schools in Delhi. despite the sarre having been already implome nted in 2 l states but once the statute i.e., the RTE Act. 200i) iI irs(rlf places the KVS in a separate category coupled with the lbct that all branches ol KVS acrJss the countrv, being run.by the same management are obliged to fbilow thI unitbrm criteria, the anxiousness of the kVS to introduce the age criteria of 6 years in accordance with the NEp, 2020 is well understandable. I may also ,"t",h;;l;;;; arguments, the fact that as held in Neeti Singir Malik (stpra), the Delhi School Education e"r onU nt,€.. 1973 is not applicable to the KVS, *r, ;"i';;r;;;; disputed by the leamed counsel fbr thej di;";;;;; therefore there is merit in respondents, plea that in" rcVS was.obligated to adopt a uniform criterion 1i,. ,,,t,;;;;; in all its branches across the country.

¶91

Once the NEp, 2020.is. not under challenge, the respondents' plea that the minirnum age ol 6 .r.;r; i;; admission to class-l as laid dou,n in thJ policr, ;;;,;rt;;; that the development of rhe child l, ,n,u.r.r,r,.'r_li,i, the class in which he/she is atlmired, ;r.;;';"";; accepred. when, once a conscious ancl weli ;;;;r"i..;; decision has already been taken tv ,lr" ._p"n.- irr"i"irr. entry age for admission to Class_l irr,la u.: i, i..i."'riri, Court cannot and should not interfbre ,"ith, t;;";; decision of the expefis. Merely b"";;,,;-'' r;;;

¶92

Dt.CRR J tlP No.l 1976 ol )ti22

¶93

¶94

inconvenience is being caused to the^{petitioners who will} have to wait fbr the^{nextacadetnicyearto applyfor} adrnission to the KVS,^cannot be^{a groundto directthe} KVS to make an exception^{for its schoolslocatedir.r} Delhi. Any such direction^{will havea ripplingeffecton} the age criteria applicable^{to KVS schools situatedall} u"rori tlt" country including^{stateswhereinthe NEP' 2020} has been irnplemented^{and consequently, the minirnurn} age for adrnission to^{Class-llras been fixedas 6 yearsir.l} all schools^{in the said states.}

¶95

The petitioners'^{plea that theage} "'i1"ti2^{6f 5+ is} still continuing in^{some of tl,e schoolslike the Army} Public School,^{Bangalore and VikramSarabhaiSpace} Centre, TlT^{iruvananthapuram,running underthe aegis of} the Union of India,^{overlooks the t'act that the NEP,2020} is being ir.rtroduced^{in the country in a phasedmannetand} the purpose of^{the irnpugned guidelinesis to.bring} unifonnity in the^{adrnissioncriteria irr all the branchesof} the KVS across^{the country.}

¶96

2.1. The^{petitiottershavc alstl Ilot disputed the} rcspondents'^{plca that theyl.rave alrcady received 7 lakh} apjlications^{ior admissions to Class-l in fuftheranceof} tlie impugned^{notice. These applicants are adrnittedly} between 6--7^{years of age and therefore, I also find rnerit} ir.r the respomlents'^{plea that in case the petitionersand} other 5-year-old^{childrenare permitted to joinClass-lin} thc KVS, it^{would lead to huge imbalancein the class} making the situation^{alnrost unworkabte Not only willthe} syllabJs have to^{be re-worked,even otherwise, admission} oi 5-year-old^{childrenwith childrenwho could be almost} 7 years old,^{would be a highlyundesirablesituation'The} baiance of the cottvellience^{also, therefore,tiltsmore in} tlic favour of^{the respondentsthan that of the petitioners'}

¶97

Refbrencc in^{this regardmay be lnadc to the} obseruatiotis of the^{MadhyaPradcsh l{igh Coutlin} '4'van Abrtr lah Osnrcni^{(supra) wl.rich readsas under'}

¶98

"20. ln such circut?tslonces, in our^considercd opirtiort, lhc age^{crileriaprescribed} .in^tle guidelines cannir be^{relaxedand should not be} rclaxecl by lhe Court,^{as such relaxalionannwlts to} pcrpctuating discrininalion^{as lhose v'hoare av'are}

¶99

Dt GRR..l wP No ll9?6 ol :t)))

I I

o.r the guidelines^{and did not} fulfill^{the criterifl} izgarding age^{prescribedin the guidelinesdid not} oiply and obtain^{admission, u'hereosthc} ,'eiponclent Nos. I^{and 2 after havingobtained} cclmission as^per the^{guidelines, havc soughlthe} t elaxation to obtain^{undueadvantage.}

¶104

The lav, in respect o.f^{grantingintcrint} orclers irt academic motters,^{has againbectr} extt,ttsit,eh' considered by^{the SupremeCourt in tlrc} case c,/ Dental Council of^{India r' Dr. Hetlgervat'} Smruti Rugna Seva,^{Mandal,Hi:rlgt:h (2017 )I -l} .tCC 11J:^{(AlR2017 SC 1826), nlrcreitrtlnt} pructice of granting inlerinr^{orders and tlrcrtttJtar'} to claint $'mpalhetic^{considertrtionsut thc Iint('ol} Jinal^{hearing, has been deprccatctl uncl tlte} respondent college in^{that case,:'l,'as direcled lo} deposil a sum oJ'Rs.j0^Lctcs.

¶105

3I . [n t'iew of^the latt^{laid dou'n by the Suprenrc} Courl, any direction^{to permit the respondentstr ittt} arlmittedly do^not fulfill^{the eligibility criteriaq'ncl} had themselves obtained^{admissionin accordutcc} therewitlt in Class-II^{and havetherea"fter'token a} abottt-turn and challenged^{the sante, lo cottlir'trc} with Class-l and to treat^{their admissionto be in} Class-lll, would amount^{to issuinga} Jiat^clirectitg the appellant school^{to disobey its ovtn Rulesand} Regulations lo which the^{appellantoltl?s i's} existence ancl would^{be destructiveof theRule o[} lav,, cts it would amount^{to issuinga clirection bt'} this Courl to the^{appellants,to disobet'Ilrcir} ''sutt lav's^".

¶106

For the aforesaid reasons,^{I am unable to p.tsuade} myself to agree with^{the petitioners. The u'rit petititusare} accordingly dismissed, without^{any ord"1515 16 c1rsts."}

¶107