Swastik Thakur V. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Education and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through its Regional Head and Kendriya Vidyalaya Dalhousie, Banikhet through its Principal

CWP/2755/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a minor, Swastik Thakur, through his father and natural guardian, Chaman Singh, challenging the denial of admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Banikhet, Chamba, H.P. The petitioner, belonging to a scheduled tribe and being a ward of a Central Government employee, applied for admission under the relevant category. Despite qualifying in the entrance examination, the admission was denied based on the grounds that the father, employed as a daily wage worker in the Income Tax Department, did not meet the criteria of being a 'regular employee' drawing emoluments from the Consolidated Fund of India. The court examined the definitions and guidelines provided by Kendriya Vidyalaya and considered the father's long-term employment and the nature of his service, ultimately deciding in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800488 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BALRAM SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ADARSH VASHISTA
• Keywords: Central Government employee; Kendriya Vidyalaya admission; Daily wage employee; Education rights; Minor's admission

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2755 of 2022 Between: SWASTIK THAKUR, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR), S/O CHAMAN SINGH ,R/O VILLAGE TALAI, P.O. RAJERA TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN & FATHER SH. CHAMAN SINGH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O SH. GHIMO RAM, R/O VILLAGE TALAI, P.O. RAJERA TEHSIL & DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. ….PETITIONER (BY MR. ADARSH K. VASHISTA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THROUGH ITS REGIONAL HEAD, S.C.O. 72-73, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 31A, CHANDIGARH-160030. 3. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA DALHOUSIE, BANIKHET, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. ……RESPONDENTS. 2 (MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA). This petition coming on for admission before notice this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, passed the following: O R D E R Vide admission notice dated 8.4.2022, Kendriya Vidyalaya Banikhet, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh issued admission notice, inviting application/registration form through offline mode for admission to four seats in class IX alongwith admission to other classes. Petitioner, who is a bona-fide Himachali and belongs to the schedule tribe category applied for admission to class IX being ward of Central Government Employee. Aforesaid school after having conducted offline entrance examination on 19.4.2022, declared the result on 21.4.2022, wherein petitioner was placed at Sr.No.4 in the provisional admission list (Annexure P- 6). However, by way of communication dated 30.4.2022 (Annexure P-8) admission to the petitioner came to be declined on the ground that in Kendriya Vidyalaya admission can only be granted to ward of an employee, who is working on regular basis and draws emoluments from the consolidated funds of India. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid action of the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying therein for following main reliefs:- 3 “i). That the writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the impugned communicated dated 30.4.2022 (Annexure P-8) in the interest of justice. ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents more specifically respondent No.3 to grant admission to the petitioner in class-IX in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Banikhet, Chamba, H.P.” 2. Vide order dated 6.05.2022, this Court having taken note of the specific averment contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, that father of the petitioner has been serving in the Income Tax Department as daily wage employee for more than 18 years, directed learned Assistant Solicitor General of India to file reply and have instructions that why the petitioner cannot be granted admission in the school, especially when his father serves in Central Government Department i.e. Income Tax Department, Government of India. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by this Court, respondents have filed reply, stating therein that as per the guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya the daily wage employee does not fall within the definition of Central Government employee and as such, petitioner has been rightly refused admission. 4. It would be apt to take note of following paras of the reply filed by the respondents hereinbelow:- 4 “1. That no cause of action much less plausible cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner and as such the petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that as per the guidelines for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya the daily wage employee does not fall within the definition of Central Government Employee, the relevant extract of the definition is reproduced hereunder for the convenience of Lordships:- (i) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: An employee who is regular (i.e. an employee working on that post sanctioned by the Government in substantive capacity) and draws his emoluments from the Consolidated Fund of India. It is submitted that according to KVS Revised Admission Guidelines session 2022-23 part-A para 2(Annexure “C”)- “The benefit of category of priority I is for children of transferable and non-transferable central Govt. employees and children of ex-servicemen i.e. an employee working on that post sanctioned by the government in substantive capacity and draws his emoluments from the Consolidated Funds of India.” In the present case, at the time of registration for admission of his ward namely Master Swastik Thakur, service certificate submitted by the petitioner duly signed by the Income Tax Officer Hamirpur (Annexure “A”) states “certified that Sh. Chaman Singh is working in the Ministry of Finance. He is an employee of Central Govt. and his services are transferable anywhere in India. “ While at the time of admission, the petitioner has submitted another certificate in which it was mentioned that “Sh. Chaman Singh son of Sh. Ghino Ram is working as Causal worker in Income Tax Department (issued by the same officer) (Annexure “B”). Since he is not a regular employee of Income Tax Department, admission of his ward has not been considered as per Revised Admission Guidelines 2022-23.” 5 5. It is apparent from the aforesaid reply filed by the respondents that as per Kendriya Vidyalayas Revised Admission Guidelines session 2022-23, children of an employee working in the Central Government in substantive capacity can be granted admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya. Though, in the case at hand, petitioner while submitting his form certified that Sh. Chaman Singh, father of the petitioner is working in the Ministry of Finance and his services are transferable anywhere in India, but at the time of admission he submitted another certificate, wherein it was mentioned that “Sh. Chaman Singh s/o Sh. Ghino Ram is working as Casual worker in Income Tax Department. As per the respondents, father of the petitioner is not a regular employee of income Tax Department and as such, he cannot be granted admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya. 6. Since, it is not in dispute that father of the petitioner has been working in the Income Tax Department for more than 20 years, we find it difficult to agree with the reasoning assigned by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya. Since father of the petitioner has already put in more than 20 years service in Income Tax Department, there is element of permanency attached to his job and as such, it would be too harsh to deny admission to the petitioner on the ground that his father is not a permanent employee of Government 6 Department. As per own reply of the respondents, Income Tax Department in its certificate has categorically mentioned that Sh. Chaman Singh, father of the petitioner, is working as casual worker in the Income Tax Department. Definition of Central Government employee, as has been reproduced by the respondents in their reply, though reveals that employee, who is regular and draws his emoluments from the consolidated funds of India would be termed Central Government employee, but an employee working on the post sanctioned by the Government is also required to be considered as Central Government employee. 7. In the case at hand, we cannot lose sight of the fact that father of the petitioner is working uninterruptedly on daily wage basis for more than 20 years. It is not the case of the respondents that father of the petitioner has been engaged by the Income Tax Department on outsource basis meaning thereby, he has been given appointment though on daily wages basis but against the substantive post. Otherwise also, there is every likelihood that services of the father of the petitioner would be regularized in coming times. 8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to intervene in the matter so that petitioner, who otherwise appears to be brilliant student is not prevented/ estopped from getting education in good school like Kendriya 7 Vidyalaya. The respondents are directed to grant admission to the petitioner in class-9, if he is otherwise in the merit. However, instant order passed by this Court shall not be treated as precedent in other cases. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 20th May, 2022 (shankar) "