Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant appeal against the decision of single Judge Bench of the High Court who had rejected the appellants’ petition seeking admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV) under “Grandparents Sponsoring Quota”; the Division Bench of N.V Anjaria, CJ and K.V Aravind, J*., upheld the decision of the single Judge Bench which held that 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.
The appellants are grandchildren of employees of Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, filed an online application seeking admission in KV for the academic year 2024-2025. The appellants claimed preference under “Grandparents Sponsoring Quota” in the application.
KV issued an endorsement informing that the “Grandparents Quota of Sponsoring IHL” is unavailable for the applied academic year.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the grandchildren of serving/retired employees have been provided preference in the guidelines governing the earlier academic years. It was submitted that the guidelines for the academic year 2023-2024 provided preference in admission to the grandchildren of serving/retired employees. There was no residuary category in the guidelines 2023-2024. However, in the guidelines 2024-2025, the priority to grandchildren of the serving/retired employees though not expressly provided, is to be considered as per the residuary clause as no such restriction is imposed.
Per contra, the respondents argued that the priorities are provided with an object to cater for the educational needs of children of transferable Central Government employees and other objectives. The priorities are based on the advice of the Board of Governors, consisting of eminent educationists and administrators from all over the country and are an expert decision and a matter of policy. The priority provided is to be extended on a case-to-case basis hence, the appellants cannot claim the priority as a matter of vested right.
Perusing the matter, the Division Bench observed that the appellants only challenged the rejection of priority under grandparents quota as against such priority in guidelines 2023-2024 and have raised no challenge to the guidelines for academic year 2024-25.
The Court pointed out that the guidelines 2023-2024 expressly provided preference to the grandchildren of serving/retired employees. When such a preference was specifically not provided in the guidelines 2024-2025, which governs the admission process for the academic year 2024-2025, the admission of the appellants cannot be considered as per guidelines 2023-2024.
Taking note of the appellants contention that though preference for grandchildren is not expressly provided in guidelines 2024-2025, such preference was available in the previous academic years, and the preference needs consideration under the residuary clause, the Court deemed this argument to unsustainable. “When preference was expressly provided in the earlier year guidelines and such preference is conspicuously absent in the guidelines 2024-2025, the reading of the preferences in the passion as suggested by the appellants is not permissible, that too in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent authorities that the quota for grandchildren is not intended nor provided for”.
The Court pointed out that there is no case for interference as the decision to exclude the preference was made based on expert advice and as a policy decision.
Therefore, taking note of the sound and well acceptable rationale provided by the single Judge, the Division Bench declined to interfere.
[Shamant P. v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 1308, decided on 5-11-2024]
*Judgment by Justice KV Aravind
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. M.P. Srikanth for the appellants;
Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan for respondent No. 1.