IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.34254/2017 (EDN – RES) BETWEEN :
V.B.RANJITH GOWDA S/O BETTASWAMY V.S., AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS 6 MONTHS R/AT NO.21, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR PRAKRUTHI PUBLIC SCHOOL LAKSHMIPURA POST CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI BANGALORE-562123 REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER BETTASWAMY S/O SINGREGOWDA R/AT NO.21, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR PRAKRUTHI PUBLIC SCHOOL LAKSHMIPURA POST CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI BANGALORE-562123 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV.) AND :
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 . THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION NEW PUBLIC OFFICE, NEAR RBI NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3 . RIGHT TO EDUCATION CELL SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR 4 . THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS COMMISSIONERS OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 5 . THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS RAJAJINAGAR SUB DIVISION, NORTH DISTRICT BANGALORE-560010 6 . THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BEO OFFICE, NORTH DIVISION-I RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 7 . EMBASSY PUBLIC SCHOOL MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560091 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL 8 . CHANDANA G., D/O GANGARAJU RTC APPLICATION NO.046496 SINCE MINOR REP BY HER FATHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN GANGARAJU R/AT NO.294, MAGADI MAIN ROAD CHIKKAGOLLARAHATTI LAKSHMIPURA, BANGALORE-562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6; R-7 & R-8 ARE SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES AND THE R-7 SCHOOL TO ADMIT THE PETITIONER TO LKG AS PER THE SEAT ALLOTTED UNDER RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT IN THE 3RD ROUND OF SEAT ALLOTMENT AS PER ANNEXURE-B.
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 sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities and the 7th respondent school to admit the petitioner to LKG as per the seat allotted under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('Act' for short) in the 3rd round of seat allotment as per Annexure-B, considering the representation submitted by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner contends that an online application under the provisions of the Act was made for admission to LKG in the 7th respondent - school. The respondent No.8 though was allotted a seat in the first round, the same got rejected for not appearing before the authorities within the time stipulated. As the said seat became vacant, the petitioner got the seat allotted in the third round. On the petitioner approaching the 7th respondent school for admission, it was endorsed that no seat can be allotted to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this court.
3. In view of the interim order passed by this court, the 7th respondent has been directed to admit both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.8 and permitted them to attend the classes subject to the result of the writ petition. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner is attending the classes continuously.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that seat allotment results were announced and the parent of the petitioner was directed to approach the school - respondent No.7 with Aadhar card on or before 5.7.2017 and admit the child failing which allotted seat would stand cancelled automatically. Pursuant to which, the parents of the petitioner have approached the school authorities and admission was denied on the ground that the said vacant seat was already allotted to some other student. It is contended that to favour the respondent No.8 who had not approached the school in the first round, the seat allotted to the petitioner in the third round has been rejected by the school authorities.
5. Learned AGA would submit that the respondent No.8 was allotted seat in the first round. The last date of admission fixed as 10.5.2017 was extended to 12.5.2017, further extended to 15.5.2017. The 8th respondent who had not taken up her admission by 10.5.2017 got admitted during the extended period i.e., 15.5.2017. The said admission of the 8th respondent was not uploaded online by the respondent No.7 - school. In view of the mistake/lapse committed by the respondent No.7 in not updating the software with regard to the admission of the 8th respondent, the petitioner was allotted the seat in the 7th respondent - school in the third round. Hence, there is no infirmity in the allotment of the seat to the respondent No.8 by the 7th respondent - school as 15 seats were allotted in the first round including the one seat allotted in the extended period. The seat was allotted to the petitioner herein in the third round by inadvertence.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. It is not disputed by the official respondents inasmuch as the seat allotted to the petitioner in the third round. In compliance with the said allotment order, the petitioner had approached the school with the relevant documents well within the prescribed period i.e., on or before 5.7.2017. The admission was denied by the school authorities as the said seat was already allotted to the 8th respondent. The allotment letter of the petitioner has not been withdrawn/cancelled by the official respondents. The respondent authorities are accusing the respondent No.7 for not updating the admission of the respondent No.8 on 15.5.2017. On the other hand, no substantial evidence is placed on record to demonstrate that such an admission was made on 15.5.2017 by the respondent No.7 school.
8. Be as it may, in view of both the students, the petitioner and the respondent No.8 being permitted to attend the classes by virtue of the interim order of this Court, the same shall be made absolute to strike a balance keeping in mind the interest of justice and equity. For any mistake committed by the official respondents, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. Similarly respondent No.8 being said to have been admitted against the allotted seat, the interest of the said child also should be safeguarded. Hence, the respondent authorities shall treat the allotted seats under the Act under respondent No.7 school as 16 during the relevant academic year 2017- 18 in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Admission of the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 shall be regularized by the official respondents.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE