IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.42630-42631/2018 (EDN-AD) BETWEEN 1. SRI.G.ANANDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O. SRI.GOPALAKRISHNAIAH SETTY, R/AT N.R.EXTENSION,, WARD NO.10, CHINTAMANI – 563125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 2. SRI.NAGABHUSHANA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. SRI.VENKATARAYAPPA, R/AT ANJANA EXTENSION, WARD NO.5, NEAR ROYAL SCHOOL, CHINTAMANI – 563 125 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.V.K.NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, (B.E.O) CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101 4. THE HEAD MASTER / PRINCIPAL LITTLE LORDS SCHOOL, ANJANA EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 125… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO 3; R4 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR ALLOTMENT OF SEATS TO THEIR CHILDREN FOR THEIR ADMISSION UNDER R.T.E. SCHEME, AS PREFERRED IN THEIR APPLICATION NO.217434, DATED 27.03.2018 AND APPLICATION NO.066940 DATED 08.03.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE – A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The wards of these two petitioners-guardians have been denied seats in fourth respondent–Institution under the R.T.E quota on the ground that their candidature did not fall within the parameters prescribed by the State and therefore, they have knocked at the doors of this Court.
2. After service of notice, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have entered appearance through their learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Pramodhini Kishan; the fourth respondent–Institution having been served with the Court notice, has chosen not to have any representation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out from the R.T.E reply at Annexure-F, that the fourth respondent–Institution figuring at Sl.No.60 therein has two vacant seats that would otherwise continue to be vacant by the purported policy of the State which assertedly involves some luck as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The learned counsel also points out paragraph No.6 of the judgment dated 21.08.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure–E rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cognate W.P.Nos.25216-25217/2018 (EDN- RES) to contend that the case of the petitioners falls within the ratio laid down therein.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate per contra opposes the grant of relief to the petitioners contending that it would open up the flood gates of litigations.
5. The alleged likely opening of the flood gates of litigants cannot be a sole ground to deny relief to the citizens if they are otherwise legally entitled to as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no reason to deviate from the beaken track as shown by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgment supra nor there is any other reason to deny relief to the petitioners especially when there is no objection from the respondent-Institution at all. In the above circumstances, justice of the case requires grant to relief to the petitioners’ children; this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 to allot seats to these petitioners under R.T.E quota in the fourth respondent–Institution and if there is any impediment for the said respondent–Institution, then to any other proximate institution and also report such an allotment to the Registry of this Court within four weeks. It is open to the respondents-official to seek any other information or records from the petitioners or from the fourth respondent– Institution that would be required for compliance of this Order.
No costs.
Compliance forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS