Karnataka High Court rules that priority given in the last academic year cannot be claimed as a legal right for grandparents to continue sponsoring students.
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the appeal from the grandchildren of Indian Institute of Science employees who wanted to get into Kendriya Vidyalaya for the 2024-2025 school year. The court supported the Single Judge’s decision that the priority given in the last academic year cannot be claimed as a legal right for future admissions. The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind, stated that the Single Judge correctly determined that admission priority is not a guaranteed right and that the previous year’s priority cannot be enforced for the current year.
Advocate Srikanth M P represented the appellants, while Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H represented the respondents. The appellants, who are the grandchildren of employees from the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru, submitted an online application for admission to the school for the 2024-2025 year, claiming preference under the “Grandparents Sponsoring Quota.” However, Kendriya Vidyalaya informed them that this quota is not available for the upcoming academic year. The Single Judge dismissed their petition, stating that admission priority cannot be seen as a guaranteed right and that the guidelines for the 2024-2025 year do not allow for the previous year’s priorities.
For the appellants, Srikanth argued that Clause 3(B)6 gives priority in admissions to children not included in specific categories. He noted that grandchildren of current or retired employees received preference in previous guidelines, and this situation falls under the residuary clause. However, the respondents argued that the grandparent’s quota for priority cannot be applied since it is not included in the 2024-2025 guidelines. The Bench pointed out that the 2023-2024 guidelines do not mention preference for grandchildren of serving or retired employees. The Bench rejected the appellants’ argument, stating that since preference was clearly included in the previous year’s guidelines but is missing in the 2024-2025 guidelines, the appellants’ interpretation was not valid, especially given the respondents’ clear position that there was no intention to include a quota for grandchildren.
The Bench stated that without a challenge to the 2024-2025 guidelines, the lack of preference for grandchildren cannot be criticized or changed by the Court. Additionally, the decision to remove this preference was based on expert advice and was a policy choice. Since the endorsement in question aligns with the 2024-2025 guidelines, it does not require any changes. The Bench also noted that the Single Judge correctly determined that the priority in admissions is not a guaranteed right and that the preference from the previous year cannot be claimed as a legal right for future admissions. Therefore, the Bench upheld the Single Judge’s ruling and 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
