Children Are Not Toys At Administrators’ Mercy, Revising Kendriya Vidyalaya Guidelines After Commencement Of Admission Process Arbitrary

Case: Dhruv Sai Kiran v. Union of India

Coram: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V.

Case No.: WP(C) NO. 15261 OF 2022

Court Observation: “While revising the admission guidelines, the respondents ought to have been fair and they should have ensured that students like the petitioners, who were legitimately expecting that they would secure admission, were not thrown out. Children are not chattels or toys to be thrown around at the mercy of the administrators. Every action taken by the authorities having an adverse effect on a section of children ought to have been taken cautiously and with all the sensitivity that it deserves.”

“The children would have legitimately expected the respondents to act fairly. The expectation of the children was legitimate and their interest has to be protected by all means. As held by the Apex Court in Major Sourabh Charan (supra), it was not permissible for the respondents to alter the basis of admission after the admission process had started to the disadvantage of the petitioners. I have no doubt in my mind that the decision taken by the respondents to change the admission guidelines after the process had started, is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and not taken in public interest.”

“Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use the hallowed phrase “that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done” is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities.”

“Education is perhaps the most important function of the State and it is with proper education that the child is awakened to cultural values. All that the respondents had to do was to ensure that the interests of the petitioners are also protected while bringing about sweeping changes. Under no circumstances could the State have ignored Article 21A of the Constitution or the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.”

Previous Posts

Conduct Of Judges Noted & Observed, Must Not Act In Any Manner Which Gives Rise To Slightest Of Doubt In Minds Of Lawyers & Litigants: Delhi HC

Amount Spent By a Man To Support His Divorced Sister Must Be Kept In Mind While Granting Maintenance To His Wife: Delhi High Court

Frivolous PILs Should Be Nipped In Bud; They Encroach Judicial Time, Stall Development Activities: Supreme Court

Construction Of Essential Facilities Like Toilets, Water Supply Permissible In Prohibited Areas Near Archaeological Monuments: Supreme Court

Reasonable Connection Between Concerned Act & Performance Of Official Duty Necessary For Public Servant To Avail Benefit Of S.197 CrPC: Gujarat HC

Doctrine Of Proportionality | Constitutional Courts Cannot Be Disproportionately Harsh To Arguable Guilts Of Litigants: Karnataka High Court

Testimony Of Disabled Witness Cannot Be Considered Week Or Inferior: SC Issues Guidelines To Make Criminal Justice System More Disabled-friendly Download Judgement

When Parties Change Venue Of Arbitration By Mutual Agreement, Changed Venue Becomes Seat Of

Arbitration

Balance Sheets Entries Can Amount To Acknowledgement Of Debt U/s 18 Limitation Act: Supreme Court