Supreme Court of India
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS.versusSAURABH CHAUDHARY & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1245
- Decided
- 5 November 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
A school governed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan cannot deny a student admission to class XI for failing to meet cut‑off marks when the school offers only the science‑with‑Mathematics stream, and must admit the student in that stream in the same school, in accordance with the decision in Principal Cambridge School v. Paya/Gupta.
Summary
The appellant Kendriya Vidyalaya denied admission to Saurabh Chaudhary for class XI because his Class X CBSE marks fell below the cut‑off prescribed in the school’s admission guidelines, and offered him a place in another Central School. The student challenged the denial, invoking the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Principal Cambridge School v. Paya/Gupta, which held that promotion to the next class is not a fresh admission and a school cannot refuse a student who has passed the public examination. The Court examined whether that precedent applies to Kendriya Vidyalayas, which are governed by the Sangathan’s regulations, and whether an offer of admission elsewhere is equivalent to continuation in the same school. It held that the earlier decision is applicable, that the offer of admission in another school is not a substitute, and that the school must admit the student to class XI in the only available science‑with‑Mathematics stream. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order directing admission.
Issues considered
- Whether a Kendriya Vidyalaya may refuse admission to its own student to class XI on the ground of not meeting cut‑off marks when only one stream is available.
- Whether the principle laid down in Principal Cambridge School v. Paya/Gupta (under Delhi School Education Rules) is applicable to Kendriya Vidyalayas governed by Sangathan guidelines.
- Whether offering admission in another Central School is equivalent to allowing the student to continue in the same school.
- Whether the school’s admission guidelines can override the right of a student who has passed the public examination to be promoted to the next class.
Legislation cited
Subjects
AdmissionEducationKendriya VidyalayaCut‑off marksPromotionClass XICBSECentral SchoolsRight to educationAdministrative law
Judgment
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 436 .iii
\
A PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. /
.,....
II.
SAURABH CHAUDHARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6487 of 2008) .
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
Education - Admission - Only one stream available viz,
Science with Mathematics for class XI and XII in Central ~
c School - Denial of admission to its own student to class XI
in said stream for not securing requisite cut off marks in class
X CBSE exam - However, offered admission in another
Central School - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - School can ~,
lay down cut off marks for selection of suitable stream on basis
D of class X marks where there are more than one stream -
However, throwing out the student from school on failure to
score the cut off marks is unjust - School should give him
the stream/course suitable for him on basis of the prescribed
cut off marks - On facts, only science stream with Mathematics
E available in the said school - Thus, student must get
admission in the said course in class XI.
The admissions to the Central Schools are governed
by 'regulation' and 'guidelines framed by the Sangathan.
In Central School No. 2 AFS, in classes XI and XII only
F science stream with mathematics was taught; The ,(
respondent passed class X CBSE examination from
Central School No. 2, AFS. He wanted to continue in class
XI in that school in science stream but was denied
admission since his class X marks were lower than the
G cut off prescribed in the guidelines for admission to class
XI. Respondent was offered admission in another Central
School in other courses commensurate to his class X ·->
marks. Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition. High 1
Court relying on Paya/'s case that the school is forbidden ;
H -436 f~
'
'
Ji
~-
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 437
CHAUDHARY & ORS.
from turning down a student because he/she failed to get A
the cut off level of marks for admission to class XI,
directed the Central School No. 2 to admit him to class
XI in science stream. Hence the_ present appeal.
Dismi~sing t.he appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that the offer of
admission in another Central School in the city is quite
the same as allowing the student to continue in the
higher class in the school from which he passed the
class X CBSE examination. The same school can only C
mean the school from which the student appeared and
passed in the class X CBSE examination and the offer of
admission in another Central School in the same city
would not alter the position. In a small town where there
may be only one Central School this arrangement may D
not work at all. Moreover, another Central School in
Chennai will be almost as strange to a young boy or girl
student as any other school. He/she will not have there
the familiar surroundings, the known teachers and his/
her friends and classmates. Furthermore, even the E
admission guidelines framed by the Sangathan
recognise the distinction between the school from where
the student passed the class X CBSE examination and
other Central Schools. Therefore, the offer of admission
in another Central School in the same city is of no F
relevance. [Para 8] [444-C-G]
1.2. Accepting the submission that the earlier
decision of this Court in *Principal Cambridge School v.
Paya/ Gupta has no application to this case as that
decision was rendered on the provisions of the Delhi G
School Education Rules, 1973, would lead to a strange
and highly anomalous situation. A private unaided school
in Delhi shall be obliged to accommodate in class XI all
- its students passing the class X CBSE examination
regardless of their percentage of marks but a Central H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
'
'>
I
A School in Delhi shall be free to refuse admission to some
\---
of its own students pa.ssing the class X .CBSE
examination on the ground that they failed to secure' the
cut off marks as per the admission guidelines. The
submission that the decision in Paya/ Gupta would not
B apply to Central Schools is otherwise also quite
unso.und. It is indeed true that the case of Paya/ Gupta
arose under the provisions of the Delhi School Education
Rules but certain observations and findings in the
decision are clearly of general application. In Paya/, this
c Court clearly held that on passing the' examination --
promotion from one class to the next higher class does
not involve any fresh admission .or readmission in the
school and whether the examination is internal or a )
...
general examination by an external statutory agency •
makes no difference in the position. Thus, it is difficult to
D
see how appellants can avoid the application of the
decision of this Court in Paya/ Gupta's case. [Paras 9, 10
and 12] [444-H; 445-A-D; 446-G, H; 447-0]
1.3. The "Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas"
E is drawn up in the form of Articles, each article dealing
with a different matter. Article 93 in chapter XI lays down
the admission guidelines. The relevant provision in the
2004 guidelines are contained in paragraph 4 (f) under
Article 93. These provisions were superseded by the
F 2007 guidelines. The cut off levels of marks in the current
guidelines remain unaltered but there is a pronounced
preference in favour of students passing the class X
CBSE examination from the same Central School. [Para
14] [449-E-G]
G
1.4. Reading the provisions in 2004 and the 2007
guidelines together would make it clear that any
preference in favour of the school's own students that
might have been assumed earlier has now been provided J
for expressly. But that alone, as in the instant case, does
,,;,...
H
~-
4<
...
(
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 439
CHAUDHARY & ORS.
-1
not prevent the school from denying admission to one A
of its own students on the ground that he/she failed to
secure the cut off marks in the class X CBSE
examination. [Para 15] [450-D, E]
1.5. One can have no objection to a school laying
B
down cut off marks for selection of suitable stream/
course for a student giving due regard to his/her aptitude
as reflected from the class X marks where there are more
"" than one stream. But it would be quite unreasonable and
unjust to throw out a student from the school because
he failed to get the cut off marks in the class X
c
examination. After all the school must share at least some
responsibility for the poor performance of its student and
should help him in trying to do better in the next higher
class. The school may of course give him the stream/
course that may appear to be most suitable for him on D
i the basis of the prescribed cut off marks. [Para 16] [450-
F-H]
1.6. In the instant case, it would have been perfectly
open to the appellants to offer admission to the boy in E
class XI in streams/courses other than science stream
with Mathematics on the basis of the prescribed cut off
levels of marks, had such courses been available in
Central School No.2, AFS, Tambram. But this school has
only science stream with Mathematics for classes XI and F
XII. The decision in Paya/ forbids the school from turning
down a student because he/she failed to get the cut off
level of marks for admission to class XI. As a result of this
fortuitous circumstance the boy must get admission in
class XI in Central School No.2, AFS, Tambram in science
G
stream with Mathematics. The decision of the High Court
j
takes the correct view of the matter and warrants no
interference. [Paras 17 and 18] [451-A-D]
*Principal, Cambridge School v. Paya/ Gupta, (1995) 5
sec 512, held applicable. H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
·"
,....
A Rahul Kumar Kashyap·(Das) v. Union of India and Ors.
(2001) lndlaw Guw 112; Maheshwari Mahapatra and Anr. v.
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors., (2005) lndiaw Ori 25
and M. I. Hussain v. N. Singh and Ors. 2005 lndlaw Del 1120,
disapproved.
B
Debashish Kr. Gupta v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1999)
Cal. 300 and D. Aravinth v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 4
M.L.J. 400, referred to. _,,•
Case Law Reference :
c 1995 (5) sec 512 Held applicable Para 18
AIR 1999 Cal. 300 Referred to Para 3
2007 (4) M.L.J. 400 Referred to Para 3
D 2001 lndlaw Guw 112 Disapproved Para 18
2005 lndlaw Ori 25 Disapproved Para 18
2005 lndlaw Del 1120 Disapproved Para 18
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 'Civil Appeal No.
6487 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2007 of the
· High Court at Madras in W.P. No. 22472 of 2007.
F P.S. Patwalia Devesh Tripathi, Amanpreet Singh Rahi,
Tushar Bakshi, Pritpal Sinch Nijjar, Jay Raman and S. Rajappa,
for the Appellants.
Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan, Nikhil Nayyar, Neelam
Sharma and Tara Chandra for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.~
AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
H
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 441
CHAUDHARY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
-I
3. The appeal arises from a controversy about admission A
of a boy to class XI in the school from where he appeared and
passed in the class X examination held by the Central Board
of Secondary Education (CBSE) in the academic year 2007-
08. The school declined to give him admission because his
marks were lower than the cut off fixed for admission to class B
XI in the admission guidelines for the school. The boy,
represented by his father took the matter to the Madras High
Court in Writ Petition No.22472 of 2007. Before the High Court,
in support of the boy's claim for admission reliance was placed
on the decision of this court in Principal, Cambridge School c
vs. Paya/ Gupta, [1995] 5 SCC 512 and the decisions of the
Calcutta High Court in Debashish Kr. Gupta vs. State of West
Bengal, AIR 1999 Cal. 300 and the Madras High Court in 0.
Aravinth vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 4 M.L.J. 400. The
Madras High Court upheld the student's claim and by judgment
D
and order dated August 16, '07 directed the school from where
i he passed the class X CBSE examination to admit him to class
XI. This appeal is taken against the judgment of the Madras
High Court.
4. The relevant facts are few and may be stated thus. The E
boy, Saurabh Chaudhary, was earlier a student of Kendriya
Vidyalaya (Central School), C.L.R.1 up to class VIII. Thereafter,
he moved to Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 (Central School No.2),
AFS, Tambaram, Chennai because his father shifted his
residence from Tiruvanmiyur to Medavakkam. He passed the F
class X CBSE examination from Central School No.2, AFS,
Tambaram. The boy is a sports person and he is said to have
won a trophy in cricket and five gold and six silver medals in
athletics. Unfortunately he was unable to give matching results
in studies. His marks inthe class X CBSE examination cannot G
be said to be very good by current standards. His marks were
as follows:
"English 80/100
Hindi 70/100 'H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
t
A Mathematics 39/100
Science 46/100
Social Science 50/100"
B He was, however, declared pass without difficulty, 33% being
the pass marks for the CBSE examination. He wanted to
continue in class XI that schooL taking Physics, Chemistry and
_,,
Mathematics, comprising science stream with Mathematics but
was denied admission because his class X marks were lower
c than the cut off prescribed in the guidelines for admission to
class XI in those subjects in Central Schools.
5. Coming now to the school, Central School No.2, AFS,
Tambaram, is one of a large number of schools established
and run by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan. The Sangathan is
0 an autonomous body set up by the Ministry of Human
Resources Development and registered as a society under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. All the Central Schools are
governed by the regulations and guidelines framed by the
Sanghathan. Here it is important to note that in Central School
E No.2. AFS, Tambram science stream with Mathematics is the
only course being taught in classes XI and XII. But there are
other Central Schools in Chennai where apart from science
stream with Mathematics other courses in Commerce and
Humanities streams are also available. It is also relevant to note
F that though the boy was denied admission in Central School
No.2 AFS, Tambram, he was offered admission in another
Central School in other courses commensurate to his class X
marks.
G, 6. Mr. Patwalia learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the three-judge-bench decision of this
Court in Principal Cambridge School vs. Paya/ Gupta (supra)
had no application to the facts of the case in hand and the High
Court was in error in up holding the claim of the respondent
H student on the basis of that decision. Learned Counsel
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 443
CHAUDHARY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
-i
submitted that in Paya/ Gupta what came under consideration A
was a circular issued by the principal of a private unaided school
in Delhi fixing cut off marks for admission in class XI for the
students passing the class X examination from the school. On
behalf of the school the circular was defended by contending
that rule 145 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 framed B
under the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 gave to the head
of the recognised unaided school the power and authority to
regulate admission to the school or to any class in the school
and the circular was issued in exercise of that authority. This
Court on examining the relevant provisions (rules 138, 144 and c
145 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973) came to
',
conclude that the head of an educational institution had no
authority to prescribe a cut off level of marks for continuance
of further studies in higher class in the same school by a student
who passes a public examination. Mr. Patwalia submitted that
D
the circular issued by the principal of the school in question in
Paya/ was held invalid because there was no legal sanction
behind it but the case in hand related to a Central School where
admissions were governed by 'regulations' and 'guidelines'
framed by the Sanghathan. This, according to him, was a
-
.
).
material difference between Paya/ and the case in hand. Mr.
Patwalia placed before us the guidelines for admission to class
XI as framed by the Sanghathan and also referred to decisions
of three High Courts in which a distinction was made between
E
the decision in Paya/ and similar cases arising from Central
Schools and the action of the Central School authorities in F
declining admission to class XI to a student passing the class
X CBSE examination from the same Central School was
upheld on the basis of those guidelines. Mr. Patwalia relied
upon a single judge decision of the Agartala Bench of the
Gauhati High Court in Rahul Kumar Kash yap (Das) vs. Union G
of India & Ors., 2001 Ind/aw Guw 112, a Division Bench
> decision of the Orissa High Court in Maheshwari Mahapatra
& Anr. vs. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. 2005 lndlaw Ori
25 and a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in
- M. I. Hussain vs. N. Singh & Ors., 2005 lndlaw Del 1120. H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A 7. The second point of distinction between Paya/ and the
case in hand, according to Mr. Patwalia, is that in the reported
decision the school in question had altogether denied
admission in the next higher class to one of its students passing
the class X CBSE examination and he was asked to collect
B the school leaving certificate and to leave the school. But in the
case in hand the respondent student was offered admission in
another Central School in Chennai having regard to the marks
obtained by him in the class X CBSE examination.
8. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr.
C Patwalia. Let us first deal with the second submission made
by him as the first point would need some discussion before it
is turned down. We find it difficult to accept that the offer of
admission in another Central School in the city is quite the
same as allowing the student to continue in the higher class in
D the school from which he passed the class X CBSE
examination. In the context in which the dispute arises, the
same school can only mean the school from which the student
appeared and passed in the class X CBSE examination and
the offer of admission in another Central School in the same
E city would not alter the position. As a matter of fact in a small
town where there may be only one Central School this
arrangement may not work at all. Moreover, another Central
School in Chennai will be almost as strange to a young boy or
girl student as any other school. He/she will not have there the
. F familiar surroundings, the known teachers and his/her friends
and classmates. Furthermore, as we shall see presently even
the admission guidelines framed by the Sangathan recognise
the distinction between the school from where the student
passed the class X CBSE examination and other Central
G Schools. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that in the
present context the offer of admission in another Central School
in the same city is of no relevance.
9. We now take up Mr. Patwalia's submission that the
earlier decision of this Court in Paya/ Gupta has no application
H
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 445
CHAUDHARY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
to this case as that decision was rendered on the provisions A
of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. We may point out
here that accepting Mr. Patwalia's submission would lead to a
strange and highly anomalous situation. A private unaided
school in Delhi shall be obliged to accommodate in class XI
all its students passing the class X CBSE examination B
regardless of their percentage of marks but a Central School
in Delhi shall be free to refuse admission to some of its own
students passing the class X CBSE examination on the ground
that they failed to secure the cut off marks as per the admission
guidelines. c
10. The submission that the decision in Paya/ would not
apply to Central Schools is otherwise also quite unsound. It is
indeed true that the case of Paya/ Gupta arose under the
provisions of the Delhi School Education Rules but certain
observations and findings in the decision are clearly of general D '
application. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the Court framed
two questions arising for its consideration as follows:
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the
short question that arises for our consideration is whether E
the Head of a private unaided school has the power to
regulate admission by prescribing the criterion of cut-off
level of marks under Rule 145 and on that basis may deny
). admission to the students of its own school to class XI who
had passed class X, Central Board of Secondary F
Education with marks less than 50 per cent in aggregate.
A further question may arise whether in the
aforementioned situation a student who passes class X
would be entitled to automatic promotion to the next
higher class i.e. XI class or it would be a case of fresh G
admission or readmission to the next hig/Jer class in the
same school."
(emphasis added)
As may be seen the second question is in general terms. H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A Answering the second question, in paragraph 6 of the j.udgment,
the Court observed as follows:
II
;
.................... It may, however, be pointed out that it is '
common knowledge that once a student is given an
admission in any educational institution by making an
B
application in the manner prescribed by Rule 135, he is
not required to submit fresh application forms after he
passes a class for his admission to the next higher class. ._,,
Once a student is given admission in· any educational
institution the same continues class after class until he
c leaves the school. In these facts and circumstances it is
difficult to accept that after a student passed his tenth
class of a public examination his admission to the next
higher class i.e. eleventh class would be a fresh
admission or readmission."
D
(emphsis added)
Further, in paragraph 7 the Court observed as follows:
II
............. If a student who fails at any public examination
E could not be denied readmission in the school or class then
it is beyond comprehension as to how a student who
passed the public examination can be denied admission
in a higher class in the same school from which he had
appeared at such examination. That being so, the right of ,.(
F a student to continue his studies further in the higher class,
in the same school, aftet passing any public examination;
cannot be worse than the right of a student who fails at any
II
such public examination .......................
G In Paya/, thus, this Court clearly held that on passing the
examination promotion from one class to the next higher class
does not involve any fresh admission or readmission in the
·~
school and whether the examination is internal or a general
.examination by an external statutory agency makes no
difference in the position.
H
I
-
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 447
CHAUDHARY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
11. It may here be noted that paragraph 7.4 of the CBSE A
bye-laws concerning Admission of Students to a School, 1
Transfer/Migration of Students provides as follows:
"Admission to Class XI: -Admission to class XI in a school
shall be open only to such a student who has passed:
B
(a) Secondary School Examination (Class X
examination) conducted by this Board; or
(b) An equivalent examination conducted by any other
recognised Board of Secondary Education/Indian c
University and recognised by this Board as
equivalent to its secondary school examination."
- 12. In view of the above, we find it difficult to see how the
appellants can avoid the application of the earlier decision of
this Court in Paya/. D
·13. We may now advert to what was described by Mr. •
Patwalia as the 'regulations and guidelines' of admission '
framed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan. Here it needs
to be stated that though alluding to the provisions as E
'regulations' Mr. Patwalia was unable to point out to us any
statutory basis for them. There is thus not much difference
between the circular coming under consideration in Paya/ and
the provisions relied upon by the appellants.
14. Mr. Patwalia referred to 'Admission Guidelines-2007' F
(Annexure P-1 ). Paragraph 5 of the Guidelines deals with
methods of admission and clause H provides as follows:
"METHODS OF ADMISSION
G
(H) CLASS XI ADMISSIONS: Fresh admissions would be
made after accommodating the eligible students of the
same KV and thereafter other KVs. Fresh admissions for ,
•
I \
remaining vacancies would be made in the order of merit
in the sequence of categories of priority on the basis of H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A the Board results of Class X. There would be no admission
in Class XI over and above the class strength. Admissions
in different streams for children seeking admission from
KVs and non-KVs would be made only on fulfilment of the
following requirements.
(emphasis added)
(i) There will be two distinct situations for-admissions in
Science and Commerce streams. One situation would be
where adequate number of children are available for
c admission to the streams from amongst students passing
Class X from KVs as well as from amongst students from
other schools seeking admission in a KV with the requisite
eligibility. The second situation would be where adequate
number of eligible children are not available for the stream
D for amongst students passing Class X from KVs as well
as from amongst students from other schools seeking
admission in KVs with the requisite eligibility. The cut off
marks for admission in both the situations would be as
under:
E . Admission to Class XI
Provision for admission in Provision for. admission
situations wherein adequate in situations wherein
eligible children are adequate children are not
F available available (where
registration of eligible
children is less than 40)
{a) Science Stream
'G (I) Science with Mathematics
(i) A minimum of 55% · i) A minimum of 52%
· · ·marks in Maths · · marks in Maths
(ii) ft:. minimum of 55% ii) A' minimum of 52%
· · .· marks in Science and marks ·in Science and
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 449
CHAUDHARY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
(iii) A minimum of 60% iii) A minimum of 57% A
marks in Maths and marks in Maths and
Science taken together Science together
and
(iv) A minimum of 55% iv) A minimum of 52%
mark in aggregate of marks in aggregate B
all subjects of all subjects
(Ii) Science without Mathematics
Science without mathematics Science without
may be allowed if the students has mathematics may C
50% marks in Science and a be allowed if the
minimum of 55% marks in student has 57%
aggregate of all subjects. marks in Science 1
and minimum of
r
' 52% marks in
aggregate of all D
subjects.
b. Commerce Stream xxx xxx xxx
c. Humanities Stream xxx xxx xxx"
E
These provisions are extracted from a compilation called 1
"Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas". The Code is drawn
up in the form of Articles, each article dealing with a different
matter. Article 93 in chapter XI lays down the admission
guidelines. The compilation produced before us was printed in F 1
January 2004. The relevant provision in the 2004 guidelines are
contained in paragraph 4 (f) under article 93. These provisions
were superseded by the 2007 guidelines enclosed with the
SLP brief. The cut off levels of marks in the current guidelines
remain unaltered but there is a pronounced preference in favour • G
of students passing the class X CBSE examination from the
same Central School. The relevant provisions in the 2004
guidelines were as follows:
"4(f). Class XI- Fresh admissions would be made in the
order of merit in the sequence of categories of priorities H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A on the basis of Board results of class X. There will be two
distinct situations for admission in Science .and Commerce .~
streams.
One situation would be where adequate number of eligible
children are available for admission to the streams from
B
amongst students passing class Xfrom. KVs as well as
from amongst students from other schools seeking
admission in a KV with the requisite eligibility.
The second situation would be where adequate number
c of eligible children are (sic) not available for the stream
from amongst students passing class X from KVs as well
as from other schools. The cut off marks for admission in
both these situations would be as follows: ........ "
0 15. Reading the 2004 and the 2007 provisions together
would make it clear that any preference in favour of the school's
own students that might have been assumed earlier has now
been provided for expressly. But that alone, as we see in the
present case does not prevent the school from denying
E admission to one of its own students on the ground that he/
she failed to secure the cut off marks in the class X CBSE
examination.
16. One can have no objection to a school laying down
cut off marks for selection of suitable stream/course for a
F student giving due regard to his/her aptitude as reflected from
the class X marks where there are more than one stream. But
it would be quite unreasonable and unjust to throw out a student
from the school because he failed to get the cut off marks in
the class X examination. After all the school must share at
G least some responsibility for the poor performance of its student
and should help him ii) trying to do better in the next higher
class. The school may of course give him the stream/course
that may appear to be most suitable for him on the basis of
the prescribed cut off marks.
H
PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. v. SAURABH 451
CHAUDHARY & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
j ,,,.... 17. In the present case it would have been perfectly open A
to the appellants to offer admission to the boy Saurabh
Chaudhary in class XI in streams/courses other than science
stream with Mathematics on the basis of the prescribed cut off
levels of marks, had such courses been available in Central
School No.2, AFS, Tambram. But this school has only science B
stream with Mathematics for classes XI and XII. The decision
in Paya/ forbids the school from turning down a student
because he/she failed to get the cut off level of marks for
t admission to class XI. As a result of this fortuitous circumstance
,'
the boy must get admission in class XI in Central School No.2, c
AFS, Tambram in science stream with Mathematics.
18. In light of the discussions made above we come to
the conclusion that ~he case in hand is fully covered by the
earlier decision of the Court in Paya/. The decisions of the
three High Courts relied upon by Mr. Patwalia in so far as they D
'
... go contrary to the decision in Paya/ do not lay down the correct
law. The decision of the Madras High Court coming under
appeal takes the correct view of the matter and warrants no
interference by this Court.
-!
E
19. In the result the appeal is dismissed but with no order
as to costs ..
N.J. Appeal dismissed .
....
-t'
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Admission"Sign in to search