Priority Provided In Previous Academic Year Can't Be Enforced As Legal Right For Continuation Of Grandparents Sponsoring Quota: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the grandchildren of employees of Indian Institute of Science seeking admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya for the academic year 2024-2025.
The High Court affirmed the view of the Single Judge Bench that priority provided in the previous academic year cannot be enforced as a legal right for continuation of such quota.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind observed, “Learned Single Judge on comparison of the list of priorities as provided in guidelines 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 has rightly held that the priority in admission cannot be construed to be a vested right and priority provided in the previous academic year cannot be enforced as a legal right for continuation of such quota.”
Advocate Srikanth M P represented the Appellants while Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H represented the Respondents.
The appellants, grandchildren of employees of Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, had filed an online application seeking admission to respondent No.6-School for the academic year 2024-2025. The appellants claimed preference under "Grandparents Sponsoring Quota" in the application. Kendriya Vidyalaya issued an endorsement informing that the "Grandparents Quota of Sponsoring IHL" is unavailable for the academic year.
The Single Judge rejected the writ petition holding that the priority in admission couldn’t be construed to be a vested right and priority based on previous academic year guidelines was not permissible in view of guidelines 2024-25 governing admissions to the academic year under consideration.
For the appellants, Srikanth submitted that Clause 3(B)6 provides priority in admission to the children when not covered under any specific categories. It was submitted that the grandchildren of serving/retired employees are provided preference in the guidelines governing the earlier academic years, and the case attracts the residuary clause.
On the contrary, the respondents contended that the request for priority on the grandparent's quota cannot be extended when such priority is not provided in the guidelines 2024-2025.
Referring to the guidelines 2023-2024, the Bench observed that the preference to the grandchildren of the serving/retired employees is not provided.
Rejecting the contention of the appellants, the Bench stated that when preference was expressly provided in the earlier year guidelines and such preference was conspicuously absent in the guidelines 2024-2025, the reading of the preferences in the passion as suggested by the appellants was not permissible especially in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent authorities that the quota for grandchildren was not intended nor provided for.
“In the absence of a challenge to guidelines 2024-2025, the exclusion of preference for grandchildren can neither be faulted nor interfered with by the Court. Further case for interference is also not made in the light of decision to exclude the preference was made based on expert advice and as a policy decision. Once it is found that the endorsement issued impugned in the writ petition conforms with the guidelines 2024-2025, the same needs no interference”, the Bench said.
The Bench further held that the Single Judge on comparison of the list of priorities as provided in guidelines 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 had rightly held that the priority in admission cannot be construed to be a vested right and priority provided in the previous academic year cannot be enforced as a legal right for continuation of such quota.
Thus, affirming the judgment of the Single Judge, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Master Shamant P v. The Union Of India [2024:KHC:45056-DB]
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Srikanth M P
Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India Shanthi Bhushan H