- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB RP No. 609 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION No. 609 OF 2024 IN WRIT APPEAL No.1305 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MASTER SHAMANT P., S/O B. PRASHANT KUMAR, MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS), REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, FATHER SRI B. PRASHANTH KUMAR, S/O C.S. BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT No. 1/1, NEW No. 234, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU NORTH, PIN 560 096. 2. MASTER SANTHOSH G., S/O GANGANNA N., MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS), REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. THARA R. V., W/O GANGANNA N., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT No.62, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, M.S.R.I.T. POST, BENGALURU 560 054. 3. KUMARI HARSHIKA B., D/O GOLLAPALLI BALAJI, MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS), Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB RP No. 609 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. G. RADHA, W/O GOLLAPALLY BALAJI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT No.2, OLD RAILWAY COLONY, KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANAYAPURA POST, BENGALURU 560 097. 4. KUMARI MANVITHA, D/O JANARDHANA D., MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS), REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. BRUNDA M., W/O JANARDHANA D., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 517, 2ND BLOCK, PEENYA ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH , PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, PIN 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRIKANTH M. P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, No.18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEETSINGH MARG, NEW DELHI 110 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BENGALURU 560 012. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB RP No. 609 of 2024 4. THE REGISTRAR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BENGALURU 560 012. 5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BENGALURU 560 012. 6. THE KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BENGALURU - 560012. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, 7. KUMARI SHOBHITA B., D/O BABU N., MINOR, (AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS), REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER SMT. M. LATHA., W/O N. BABU, C/O MUNISWAMY C., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 2, 6TH A CROSS, SUBEDAR PALYA, BENGALURU 560 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., DSGI FOR R1 TO R6) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2024 PASSED ON WA No.1305/2024 (EDN RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-A, RESTORE THE WRIT APPEAL WA No.1305/2024 (EDN -RES) TO ITS FILE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB RP No. 609 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard learned advocate Mr. M.P. Srikanth for the petitioners and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H. Shanthi Bhushan for respondent Nos.1 to 6. 2. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.1305 of 2024 have preferred this review petition seeking review of the order dated 05.11.2024. 3. The petitioners are the grandchildren of employees of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. They submitted online applications seeking admission to respondent No.6-School for the academic year 2024-2025, claiming preference under the 'Grandparents Sponsoring Quota.' However, their applications were rejected. The rejection of applications was challenged in Writ Petition No.12974 of 2024. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 08.07.2024, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Division - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB RP No. 609 of 2024 Bench in Writ Appeal No.1305 of 2024, which was also dismissed, thereby upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. The present review petition is preferred raising various grounds. 5. Learned advocate Mr. M.P. Srikanth, appearing for the review petitioners, submits that the admission guidelines applicable for the academic year 2023-2024 provided preference to the grandchildren of retired employees. However, the guidelines for the academic year 2024-2025 did not extend such preference. Nevertheless, learned advocate contends that under both sets of guidelines, the residuary clause/preference remains intact. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for admission under the residuary category. It is further submitted that this aspect has not been considered in the impugned judgment. 6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Mr. H.Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, submits that no specific quota is reserved for the grandchildren of retired employees. He contends that the admission guidelines for the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 merely provided a preference in admission, rather than a reserved quota. It is further - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB RP No. 609 of 2024 submitted that the benefit of the residuary clause would arise only if seats remain unfilled after admitting candidates under the prescribed preference categories. However, as there are no available seats for admission, consideration under the residuary category do not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot claim any right to admission. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties, it is evident that the grounds raised in support of the review petition are a mere reiteration of the grounds urged in the writ appeal. The said grounds have already been considered and answered in the judgment dated 05.11.2024. 8. Be that as it may, it is the specific submission of the learned DSGI that candidates can claim admission under the residuary preference only when there are no children eligible for admission under the earlier preference categories. A perusal of the admission guidelines issued by respondent No.6 for the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 makes it evident that no specific preference has been provided to the grandchildren of retired employees for the academic year 2024-2025. Furthermore, the application form issued for the academic year 2024-2025 explicitly - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8651-DB RP No. 609 of 2024 states that such preference is not available for the academic year in question. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions and the findings recorded hereinabove, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, no case is made out for the exercise of review jurisdiction. All the grounds urged in the review petition are only reiteration of grounds in writ appeal. In the review petition, the petitioners are not permitted to reargue the case. The submissions advanced are already addressed in the appeal. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the review petition, the interlocutory applications seeking condonation of delay and production of additional documents, would not survive for their consideration. Accordingly, the applications are rejected. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1