APHC010502392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1110 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-6 [3552] Union Of India and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Nishanth Jaladi and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr.J U M V PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.T D PANI KUMAR, Mr.L V S NAGARAJU CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 27th October 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) This appeal preferred under clause 15 of Letters Patent assails the order dated 05.08.2025 in W.P. No.9052 of 2025 passed by learned Single Judge, by which the appellants were directed to consider the case of 1st respondent/ writ petitioner for providing admission in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 at Vijayawada on the condition of shifting their residence to nearer place falling within 5 Kms from school in order to qualify and become eligible for seeking admission in terms of the guidelines for admissions in Kendriya Vidyalayas (2025-2026 and onwards). 2 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 2. The 1st respondent preferred writ petition before this Court aggrieved by action of the respondents/appellants herein in denying admission to the child namely Nishanth Jaladi, vide application No.252540109382813365, to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued for admissions in Kendriya Vidyalayas (hereinafter, for short ‘KVs’) for the academic year 2025-26. 3. (a) Writ petitioner stated to be belonging to SC community and eking out livelihood by working as painter. In order to provide better education to his child and on the advice of well-wishers, he intended to join the ward in KVs. In pursuance to the notification dated 07.03.2025 issued by appellants calling for admissions into various KVs, petitioner made application for admission with respect to PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 (hereinafter, for short ‘KV No.1’) and PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 (hereinafter, ‘KV No.2’) at Vijayawada region. (b) It is stated that the notification has envisaged 25% of seats available for fresh admissions to Class - I shall be reserved for Right to Education (RTE), 15% for Scheduled Caste Category, 7.5% for Scheduled Tribe Category and 27% for OBC – non creamy layer category. Notification also fixed class strength to 3 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 consist of 40 students per section, of which 25% reservation for RTE translated to 10 seats. Further, the notification also stipulated that student is permitted to apply for three different KVs under same application and also indicate at least one choice of KV amongst them. In view of the same, writ petitioner applied for KV No.1 at Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada and KV No.2 at Wagon Workshop, Guntupalli, Vijayawada and he opted for consideration under RTE quota, which reserved 25% of the seats. (c) In the provisional list displayed for KV No.1, which consisted of three sections in class – I, 1st respondent name appeared in the list, however, in waiting list at S.No.84, as against the total number of 30 seats reserved under RTE quota. Likewise, with respect to KV No.2, which consisted of two sections in class – I, 1st respondent name appeared in the list at S.No.18, as against the total number of 20 seats. His name was also figured even in the other two categories for which reservation applied i.e., under the category of SC and service at S.Nos.92 and 152 respectively. (d) It is stated that despite falling under zone of consideration under RTE quota in respect of KV No.2, his candidature has not been considered, therefore, constrained to approach this Court. 4 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 4. (a) The appellants herein filed detailed counter in the writ petition and tried to justify their stand that the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed under the guidelines for considering his candidature under RTE quota. It is stated that aforesaid reservation provided under RTE would apply only to the candidates who reside in the neighbourhood, and the neighbourhood has been clearly defined to include only those who are within 5 km radius in case it is urban area and 8 km radius in case it is any other place other than urban area. Since the respondent did not satisfy aforesaid criteria with respect to KV No.2, though in the merit list he stood at S.No.18 as against 20 seats, his candidature could not be considered for admission. Though the respondent has satisfied aforesaid criteria with respect to KV No.1, since in the merit list he was at S.No.84 as against 30 seats, he did not fall within the zone of consideration. (b) It is further stated that though the respondent was also eligible for the other categories i.e., SC and service respectively, and his name was shortlisted in the merit list, he could not make it through as there were other more meritorious candidates in the merit list. Hence, in any of the reserved categories, the 1st respondent could not be accommodated. 5 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 5. KVs are under the administrative control of Ministry of Education (Shiksha Mantralaya), and operate as autonomous organization being registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, fully financed by Government of India (Ministry of Human Resource Development), the guidelines issued for the purpose of administering the admissions to more than 1256 institutions run across the country have binding force and circumspection of the said guidelines would affect the prospects of children from same sections of society who are also beneficiaries under RTE. 6. On consideration of aforesaid pleadings and submissions made by respective counsels, the writ court, having recorded finding that the 1st respondent did not reside within the neighbourhood of KV No.2 and that their residence was about 17 Kms from KV No.2, however, by following the judgment of High Court of Madras in C.Balasubramanian v. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, IIT Campus, Chennai1 and the judgment of High Court of Orissa in Rakesh Mahallick v. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneshwar & another2, has taken a lenient view to accommodate the request of writ petitioner. In order to 1 W.P. No.14189 of 2025, dated 30.04.2025 2 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 517 = AIR 2020 Ori 14 6 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 accommodate such request, the 1st respondent was directed to satisfy the requirement of neighbourhood by shifting the residence and relocating to a place falling within radius of 5 km of KV No.2 to be in compliance with the guidelines. 7. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for appellants contended that when the guidelines for admission specifically provide the criteria for consideration of neighbourhood, which stipulates that the candidate claiming admission should be within a radius of 5 km of KV in which admission is sought for, the right that is claimed under RTE can be extended only to such of those candidates who are in compliance thereof as on the date of notification and cannot be, at any rate, relaxed. He further contended that relaxing the essential requirement of admission criteria at this stage would affect the chances of other children from same section of society who otherwise satisfied the criteria of neighbourhood as on the date of notification, which would be violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the judgments on which reliance has been placed by learned single judge really do not lay down any ratio as such and they do not consider the effect of guidelines which are binding and have a statutory flavour. 7 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner tried to support the order of the learned single judge by contending that the benefit bestowed on downstradden sections of the society under the provisions of RTE cannot be taken away by prescribing the neighbourhood criteria and since he has undertaken to relocate the residence to nearer place of subject KV to be in compliance with the said requirement, technically there would not be any violation of the guidelines, therefore, rightly the learned single judge has directed to accommodate for admission which cannot be found fault with. 9. Core facts germane for disposal of present appeal, which are not in dispute are as under: The appellants had issued notification dated 07.03.2025 advertising for admissions to be undertaken to various KVs for academic year 2025-26 and accordingly, applications were called for. The said notification also has indicated reservation of seats as per KVs admission guidelines 2025-26. As per the guidelines issued in PART – C, procedure for admissions, under clause 4 reservation was provided for. Clause 4 reads as under: “4. Method of Admission in Class – I Out of the available seats of fresh admission 25% shall be reserved for Right to Education (Hereafter 8 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 referred to as ‘RTE’), 15% shall be reserved for SC, 7.5% shall be reserved for ST and 27% seats shall be reserved for “OBC – Non – Creamy Layer”. (Hereafter referred to as “OBC-NCL”). After admission of students under RTE Act 2009 followed by Children with Special Needs (CwSN) the children belonging to Cat-1 will be taken up. The students admitted under Cat-1 will also include SC/ST/ OBC-NCL. Similarly, after admission of Cat-1, admission of Cat-2 will be taken up which will include SC/ST/OBC-NCL (up to Cat-3 in case of Project/IHL School). The shortfall in the number of candidates on seats reserved for SC, ST and OBC-NCL will be worked out after considering the number of SC/ST/OBC-NCL children admitted under RTE quota and Priority Cat-1 and Cat-2. The reservation norms shall be applicable within approved class strength 40 students per section: RTE 25% : 10 seats (which may include the below mentioned seats reserved for SC/ST/OBC- NCL) SC 15% : 06 seats ST 7.5% : 03 seats OBC-NCL 27% : 11 seats (3% seats for the Children with Special Needs (CwSN) applicants would be reserved horizontally) 9 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 After closing of process of registration, the sequence of conduct of lottery by each Kendriya Vidyalaya will be as under: a) RTE Lottery b) All CwSN Lotteries c) CAT – I d) CAT – II e) SC f) ST g) OBC h) CAT-III i) CAT-IV j) CAT-V k) CAT-VI (If applicable) The following sequence is to be adopted for the fresh admissions to Class-I in Kendriya Vidyalayas: (I) First Lot: 10 seats (out of 40 seats) in Class I per section are to be filed as per RTE Provisions (25% of seats) and these 10 seats will be filled by draw of lots from all applications of SC/ST/EWS/BPL/OBC (Non- Creamy Layer)/CwSN taken together who are the resident of Neighbourhood.” 10. Further neighbourhood has been defined as under: “C. Definition of Neighbourhood & Proof of Residence (Applicable for admission under RTE only) 10 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 Since Kendriya Vidyalayas are located at places with varied density of population, they have been categorized as follows for determining the limits of neighbourhood. 1. Major cities and Urban area (All District Hqrs. & Metros) 5 km Radius 2. Places and areas other than included in 1 above 8 km Radius 11. Writ petitioner has made online application on 19.03.2025, which was registered as ‘Application Submission Code: 252540109382813356’. The application indicated the place of residence as ‘53-4-68, Ground Floor, Opp: Simhachalam Enclave, Christurajupuram, Vijayawada – 520008’. Separate applications were submitted for KV No.1 and KV No.2. In the column indicating whether eligible for admission under RTE, in both applications, it was mentioned in affirmative. Meaning thereby, the residence mentioned therein was falling within 5 km of respective KVs. After scrutiny of the application and shortlisting of names, the merit list came to be published. In respect of KV No.1, 1st respondent stood at S.No.84 as against 30 seats and in respect of KV No.2, he stood at S.No.18 as against 20 seats. 12. It is an admitted fact that the residence as declared in the application was about 17 kms from KV No.2 and even learned 11 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 single judge has recorded such finding. In this background of facts, it has to be seen whether writ petitioner has satisfied the criteria specified under the guidelines and whether the writ court exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can grant relief in favour of writ petitioner, who admittedly did not meet the essential criteria of neighbourhood as envisaged under the guidelines. 13. KVs are under control and management of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), which is an autonomous organization registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is financed by Government of India (Ministry of Human Resource Development). The core object for formation of KVS was to cater to the educational needs of children of transferable Central Government Employees including Defence Personnel. It is now being under the control of Ministry of Education (Shiksha Mantralaya). As of now, it is stated that KVS runs about more than 1256 institutions across the country and the Chairman of KVS being none other than Union Minister of Ministry of Education and Vice Chairman being Additional Secretary of Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India. In order to streamline the admissions to 12 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 aforesaid schools, KVs has come up with guidelines for admissions, namely ‘Guidelines for Admissions in Kendriya Vidyalayas (2025-26 & Onwards)’. Aforesaid guidelines framed by KVs under the aegis of Ministry of Education, therefore, strictly may not really be statutory in nature but have trapping of executive instructions to have uniformity in admissions for all institutions across the country. When such guidelines are framed, unless the same are challenged, the criteria prescribed therein, in particular neighbourhood criteria, which are applied across the board to all candidates who seek admissions to various KVs throughout country, cannot be undermined and selectively excluded for some of the applicants merely for asking. This Court is conscious that any guidelines at most would be merely advisory and in nature of soft law. However, as in the present case since subject guidelines are issued by KV, under the management of Ministry of Education (Shiksha Mantralaya), the same would be legally binding. It is opt to refer to the relevant portion of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and others3: “107. We would also like to refer to one more aspect of the enforceability of the guidelines by persons in the 3 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 440 13 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 position of the petitioners in these cases. Guidelines are issued by governments and statutory authorities in various types of situations. Where such guidelines are intended to clarify or implement the conditions and requirements precedent to the exercise of certain rights conferred in favour of citizens or persons and a deviation therefrom directly affects the rights so vested the persons whose rights are affected have a clear right to approach the court for relief. Sometimes guidelines control the choice of persons competing with one another for the grant of benefits, largesses or favours and, if the guidelines are departed from without rhyme or reason, an arbitrary discrimination may result which may call for judicial review. In some other instances (as in the Ramana Shetty case [(1979) 3 SCC 489 : (1979) 3 SCR 1014]), the guidelines may prescribe certain standards or norms for the grant of certain benefits and a relaxation of, or departure from, the norms may affect persons, not directly but indirectly, in the sense that though they did not seek the benefit or privilege as they were not eligible for it on the basis of the announced norms, they might also have entered the fray had the relaxed guidelines been made known. In other words, they would have been potential competitors in case any relaxation or departure were to be made. In a case of the present type, however, the guidelines operate in a totally different field. The guidelines do not affect or regulate the right of any person other than the company applying for consent. The manner of application of these guidelines, 14 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 whether strict or lax, does not either directly or indirectly, affect the rights or potential rights of any others or deprive them, directly or indirectly, of any advantages or benefits to which they were or would have been entitled. In this context, there is only a very limited scope for judicial review on the ground that the guidelines have not been followed or have been deviated from. Any member of the public can perhaps claim that such of the guidelines as impose controls intended to safeguard the interests of members of the public investing in such public issues should be strictly enforced and not departed from; departure therefrom will take away the protection provided to them. The scope for such challenge will necessarily be very narrow and restricted and will depend to a considerable extent on the nature and extent of the deviation. For instance, if debentures were issued which provide no security at all or if the debt-equity ratio is 6000 : 1 (as alleged) as against the permissible 2:1 (or thereabouts) a court may be persuaded to interfere. A court, however, would be reluctant to interfere simply because one or more of the guidelines have not been adhered to even where there are substantial deviations, unless such deviations are, by nature and extent such as to prejudice the interests of the public which it is their avowed object to protect. Per contra, the court would be inclined to perhaps overlook or ignore such deviations, if the object of the statute or public interest warrant, justify or necessitate such deviations in a particular case. This is because 15 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 guidelines, by their very nature, do not fall into the category of legislation, direct, subordinate or ancillary. They have only an advisory role to play and non- adherence to or deviation from them is necessarily and implicitly permissible if the circumstances of any particular fact or law situation warrants the same. Judicial control takes over only where the deviation either involves arbitrariness or discrimination or is so fundamental as to undermine a basic public purpose which the guidelines and the statute under which they are issued are intended to achieve.” 14. Learned single judge though referred to judgments of High Court of Madras and Orissa referred supra, this Court finds that the same really do not lay down any specific proposition as such to dilute or relax the neighbourhood criteria under the guidelines. Though it is contended that the 1st respondent has right under RTE for education, and that he cannot be subjected to the rigor of neighbourhood condition, which defeats the purpose of the Act, we are not impressed with such submission inasmuch right emanating from RTE is only to education and not centric to any specific school. The said Act even mandates the private schools within the vicinity to implement the reservation as provided therein, therefore, when there is no specific definition as such provided under the Act to the expression ‘neighbourhood school’, 16 HC, J & CGR, J W.A. No.1110 of 2025 the guidelines framed, in the absence of any challenge to the guidelines, the 1st respondent as a matter of right cannot insist for consideration of his case for admission in relaxation of the neighbourhood criteria. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by learned single judge cannot be sustained, therefore, the same is hereby set aside and accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss