Can't Deny Admission Solely Because Student Not Resident Of District In Which Navodaya Vidyalaya Is Situated: Patna High Court Differs From Bombay HC

It has further held that denying admission to the petitioners after they were duly selected and found meritorious, solely on the basis of their parents not being residents of the district, is not sustainable in law.

Petitioners, who are young children, had approached the Court through their parents in order to allow them to join the prestigious Jawahar Navodya Vidyalaya (‘JNV’) at Jamui in Bihar after they had been selected.

The petitioners contended that the Respondent wrongly cancelled their admission solely on the ground that the Petitioner's parents are not residents of the district Jamui where the JNV is located.

The school, through a letter addressed to the parents, gave three reasons for rejecting the admission of the petitioners:

“firstly, selection in the test did not guarantee admission; secondly, their candidature was solely rejected due to their parents not being residents of the district where the JNV is located, even if they were selected in the test; and thirdly, the Bombay High Court's ruling … stated that the petitioner must be a resident of the same district where the JNV is located and seeking admission.”

It must be noted that a division bench of the Bombay High Court in Shubham Vijay Patil and Ors. v. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti had held that “…candidate seeking admission to the JNV must satisfy the twin test (I) he must be studying in class V in Government/Government aided or other recommended schools or B Certificate Competency Course of NIOS in the same District where the JNV is situated and (ii) he must be resident of the same district where the JNV is situated and is seeking admission.”

Counsel appearing for the Petitioners argued that the Division Bench judgement of the Bombay High Court does not have a binding effect on the other high courts and it only has a persuasive value.

The petitioners further contended that a student cannot be denied admission based solely on their parents' residence after they have been selected as that would unfairly deprive students, like the petitioners, who have studied at their parental or maternal home away from their parents' residence, of admission to any JNV.

The petitioners submitted that the requirement of residence is not related to the purpose of achieving admission to JNV.

Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the respondent school, argued that the interpretation adopted by the Bombay High Court is persuasive and there is no justification for this Court to adopt a different view.

Judgment

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, while allowing the writ petition, held that the view taken by the Bombay High Court was incorrect.

The court held that the requirement of a residence certificate was only mandatory for candidates from NIOS (National Institute of Open School) category.

While referring to the prospectus issued by the respondent school, the court held, “In the Chapter ‘Selection and Admission’ the requirement is limited to the fact that the child was studying in class Vth from the school which was located in the same district where the admission in JNV is sought.”

While referring to the rules of interpretation, the court held, “In Kehar Singh Vs. State, 1988(3) SCC 609, the golden rule was stated by Jagannath Shetty, J. as “the grammatical or literal meaning unmindful of consequences”. Lord Simon, however, held that “unmindful of consequences” as not part of the Golden Rule and will have no application. In fact, the Golden Rule of construction would apply to “the natural or ordinary meaning of a word or sentence”.

“The provisions of the prospectus are in plain and clear language. The interpretation of such provisions has to be on the basis of the Golden Principle of interpretation. Language used in any provision has to be as it is and to be interpreted on the basis of the plain meaning. There is no scope for persuasive interpretation if the plain reading of the provision expresses its meaning,” the court added.

‘Two categories of students who apply to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya’

In the judgment, after referring to the prospectus issued by the respondent school, the court has identified two distinct categories of students, referred to as Class 'X' and Class 'Y', who can apply for admission to a JNV in a particular district.

“Class 'X' includes candidates who have studied in the same school located in the same district from class III to class V, provided they have completed full academic sessions in these classes. Whereas, Class 'Y' includes candidates who have passed class V from the open school of NIOS. Since such students do not attend a regular school, they are required to be residents of the district where the JNV is situated and must submit a residence certificate,” the court clarified.

Justice Sharma, while referring to the Bombay High Court judgement, observed, “that while the prospectus required Class 'X' students to have studied in a school located in the same district from class-III to class-V, there was a different requirement for Class 'Y' students, who were required to submit a residence certificate of their parent attested by the concerned SDM/Tehsildar. However, the Bombay High Court failed to notice this distinction.”

“…two distinct classes cannot be treated individually as it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution,” the court added.

Based on the above reasoning, the court quashed the letter issued by the respondent school rejecting admission to the petitioners and directed the school to consider the petitioners for admission as per their merit in the JNV, Jamui (Bihar) and allow them to join and continue their studies. The court further directed that the students would also be provided extra tuition in order to cover up the period that was lost by them due to the pending litigation.

Case Title: Paramjeet Kumar (Minor) Vs. The Union of India Case No.502 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 9