IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.38848/2018 (EDN – RES) BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH S/O MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT KIRANGUR VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI P.NATARAJU, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION CELL SARVASHIKSHA ABHIYANA ANNEXE BUILDING, NEW PUBLI OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICES, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR (PRL.SCHOOL) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION ANNEXE BUILDING, NEW PUBLI OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RIGHT TO EDUCATION SECTION) ANNEXE BUILDING, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438 7. THE PRINCIPAL/HEAD MASTER CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC SCHOOL SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA. FOR R-1 TO R-6; R-7 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2018 VIDE ANENXURE-F AND ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the endorsements dated 28.04.2018, 28.05.2018 and 08.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.4 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to allot the seat in the seventh respondent’s school under the RTE quota or in the alternative direct the respondents to convert the admission of the petitioner’s son in the seventh respondent’s school as the admission made under the RTE quota.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the father of one Kushal Gowda.N, aged about 6 years. The petitioner has applied for assigning the seat to his son in the seventh respondent’s school as the first preference under the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ['Act' for short]. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 allotted the seat at Manasa HPS school situated at Kaparana Koppalu village which is at the distance of 4 K.M., of the residence of the petitioner sans not considering the petitioner’s son studying at the seventh respondent’s school since last three years.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that the representation submitted by the petitioner is also not responded to assign the seat at respondent No.7 – School.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitioner while making application has given preference/entry option for three schools namely Cambridge School, Srirangapatna, Supreme School, Minajiboranakoppa and Manasa H.P.S. School, Kopparana Koppalu. In the 1st round of allotment, the petitioner’s child was allotted a seat on 20.04.2018 as per the option made in the application (3rd option) through on-line lottery. The time was given upto 08.05.2018 to make admissions under the said allotment. However, the petitioner has choosen not to get the child admitted. That being the position, the petitioner has made several representations to the authorities seeking for change of school which has been rightly negated assigning the cogent reasons and the same does not call for any interference by this Court.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Section 5(2) of the Act reads thus:-
“(2) where a child is required to move from one school to another, either within a State or outside, for any reason whatsoever, such child shall have a right to seek transfer to any other school, excluding the school specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Clause (n) of Section 2, for completing his or her elementary education”.
7. The said provision clearly stipulates that when a child has to move from one School to another within the State, the School specified under (iii) and (iv) of Clause (n) of Section 2 are excluded i.e., a child cannot seek transfer or move from one School to another in respect of Schools belonging to Special Category or an unaided school. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek transfer or move from the school allotted to the preferences of the petitioner.
8. The seats are allotted to the students under the Act through online lottery on random basis to maintain transparency. In such circumstances, the seat allotted as per the preference given by the petitioner is in accordance with Section 12[1] [c] of the Act and the same cannot be found fault with. No exception can be found with the endorsement impugned.
The writ petition is bereft of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC/PMR