Twin Girl’s KV Admission Was a Privilege, Not a Right: Kerala HC Dismisses Writ Against Withdrawn Concession

The Kerala High Court held that the Kendriya Vidyalaya policy of treating twin girl children as a single admission was a withdrawable privilege, not an enforceable right, and dismissed a father’s writ petition seeking Class I admission for his second twin daughter.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, sitting singly at the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, dismissed a writ petition filed by a Kollam-based Indian Railways employee and his six-year-old twin daughter, who challenged the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s refusal to admit the second twin to Class I at PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kollam for the academic year 2026–27. The court found that the special provision treating twin girl children as a single admission had been withdrawn after the 2022–23 academic session, more than three years before the admission in question, and that the petitioners had applied with full knowledge of its absence. The challenge to the withdrawal of the concession was held to be without merit, as what existed was a privilege that could be withdrawn at any time, not a right that could be enforced under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Dispute Before the Court

Rajesh R., the first petitioner, is an employee of Indian Railways residing at Koottikkada, Kollam district. He applied for admission of his twin daughters — Apoorva Rajesh and Anugraha Rajesh, both aged six — to Class I at PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kollam for 2026–27. The applications were processed under the KVS Admission Guidelines for 2026–27. Apoorva Rajesh secured waiting list number 6 under Category I and was granted admission on the basis of merit and priority. Anugraha Rajesh, the second petitioner, was assigned waiting list number 16 under the same category. Since admissions under Category I were completed up to waiting list number 12, she could not be accommodated within the sanctioned intake strength.

Rajesh R. contended that the twin children shared a deep emotional bond and that separating them, particularly at such a young age, would put them at risk both emotionally and physically. He argued that the earlier KVS policy of treating twin girl children as a single admission should be restored, and that its withdrawal was violative of Article 14. He also invoked clauses 6.2 and 6.7 of the National Education Policy 2020, which deal with the “Beti Bachao Beti Padhao” initiative, to argue that twin girl children should be permitted to study together.

The writ petition sought a declaration that the discontinuation of the benefit of admission previously granted to a single girl child and twin girl children over and above the approved class strength was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, along with a direction to grant admission to Anugraha Rajesh to Class I.

The KVS Admission Guidelines and the Withdrawn Concession

The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan placed on record that the special category admission for a single girl child was introduced in the academic session 2006–07. At that time, the definition of “single girl child” included twin girls, and in respect of such twins, both were to be treated as a single admission. This concession allowed twin girl children to be admitted over and above the approved class strength.

However, the Sangathan stated that this special provision underwent a change with effect from 2022–23 and was thereafter withdrawn. The current Guidelines — Exhibit P11, brought into effect from the academic session 2024–25 and applicable to 2026–27 — were issued in supersession of the earlier guidelines. The present Guidelines contain no provision for treating twin girl children as a single admission. Part B of the Guidelines for 2025–26, which prescribes categories of children who may be admitted over and above the class strength, does not include twin girl children.

The Sangathan also argued that admission to Kendriya Vidyalayas is carried out on the basis of centrally notified Admission Guidelines framed in the interest of transparency, uniformity, equity and administrative feasibility. Personal hardships, unless specifically recognised under the Guidelines, cannot confer any enforceable legal right. Any deviation from the admission procedure, the Sangathan submitted, would compromise the principles of equality, transparency and fairness with respect to similarly placed applicants who were awaiting admission.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas examined the rival contentions and the applicable Guidelines. The court noted that the concession for twin girl children had been in existence only till 2022–23 and had been withdrawn more than three years before the admission sought by the second petitioner. The current Guidelines, which governed the 2026–27 admissions, contained no such special provision.

The court held that the petitioners were wholly aware, at the time of applying, that the concession for twin girl children was not in existence under the Guidelines. Despite this, the first petitioner applied for admission for both children. In these circumstances, the court found that the petitioners could not claim any benefit even under the principle of legitimate expectation. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others [(2005) 1 SCC 625] on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

On the core question of whether the withdrawal of the concession was arbitrary or violative of Article 14, the court was clear. What had existed was a privilege given to twin girl children, not a right. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ayurveda Shastri Seva Mandal v. Union of India [(2013) 16 SCC 696], which held that “a privilege granted to candidates in the matter of education cannot be transformed into a right.” Privileges conferred can be withdrawn at any time, and the challenge against the discontinuation of the benefit was therefore without merit.

The court also addressed the broader administrative concern. Kendriya Vidyalayas cater to numerous students across the country and are obligated to adhere strictly to uniform admission norms. No specific or selective entitlement can be directed to be conferred outside the scope of the notified Guidelines based on individual preferences or circumstances. Conferring such a benefit would prejudice applicants who had adhered to the stipulations in the Guidelines.

The court further held that there was no right for the second petitioner to gain admission to a Kendriya Vidyalaya school by ignoring the scheme and manner of admissions provided in the Guidelines. The Guidelines being in the nature of a public notice, the second petitioner had to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. The mere fact that her twin sister secured admission did not, by itself, confer any entitlement on the second petitioner.

The court also referred to a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Elna Chinchu and Another [2022 KER 41844], wherein the Division Bench had refused to interfere with the withdrawal of discretionary quotas in admission. That decision was found relevant to the present facts.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found no merit in the claim of the petitioners for admission of the second petitioner to PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kollam. The court declined to issue any direction to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to treat the twin daughters as a single admission or to grant admission to Anugraha Rajesh over and above the sanctioned intake strength.