Introduction:
The Kerala High Court, in Rajesh R. and Another v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others (W.P.(C) No. 17439 of 2026), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 349, examined the legality of the withdrawal of a special admission benefit earlier extended to single girl children and twin girl children in Kendriya Vidyalaya schools. The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who dismissed the writ petition challenging the discontinuation of the said policy and upheld the primacy of uniform admission guidelines in centrally administered educational institutions.
The petition was filed by an employee of the Indian Railways and one of his twin daughters. The factual background reveals that the first petitioner had applied for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya for both of his twin daughters. However, only one of them was granted admission to Class I, while the other was denied admission due to the prevailing admission norms and limited class strength.
The grievance of the petitioners arose from the fact that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), which earlier had a policy of treating twin girl children as a single admission under a special category, had discontinued this concession from the academic year 2022–23 onwards. The petitioners challenged this discontinuation, contending that the withdrawal of such a benefit was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The case thus raised significant questions relating to educational policy, equality in admission processes, legitimate expectation, and the extent to which courts can intervene in administrative decisions governing academic institutions that function under nationally uniform guidelines.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners contended that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had arbitrarily discontinued a beneficial admission policy that previously treated twin girl children as a single admission unit. It was argued that the policy, when in force, recognised the unique circumstances of twin siblings, particularly twin girls, and sought to promote emotional well-being, gender equality, and social sensitivity by ensuring that such siblings were not separated at the entry level of schooling.
The petitioners submitted that the discontinuation of this policy from the academic year 2022–23 was unreasonable and had adversely affected the interests of the second petitioner, who was denied admission solely on account of the withdrawal of this special category benefit. It was argued that the action of KVS was arbitrary and violated the equality clause under Article 14, as similarly placed children were earlier being treated under a beneficial classification which was now removed without adequate justification.
A further submission was made that the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied in the present case. It was contended that since the petitioners were aware of the earlier policy permitting twin girl children to be treated as a single admission unit, they had a legitimate expectation that such a benefit would continue to be available, especially in cases where admissions were sought in continuation of earlier norms. The petitioners also highlighted the emotional bond between twin siblings and argued that separating them at the entry-level stage of education would cause psychological and emotional distress, which the policy earlier sought to avoid.
On the other hand, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, represented by its standing counsel, opposed the writ petition and justified the discontinuation of the policy. It was submitted that the special category admission benefit for single girl children, which earlier included twin girls, was introduced as a welfare measure in 2006–07. However, after a policy review, the provision was discontinued from the academic year 2022–23 onwards.
The respondents emphasised that the present admissions are governed strictly by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Admission Guidelines for 2026–27, which do not provide any concession for twin girl children to be treated as a single admission. It was argued that admissions in Kendriya Vidyalayas are based on a structured priority and merit system, and any deviation from the notified guidelines would compromise fairness and equal opportunity for other applicants.
The respondents further contended that extending such a benefit outside the existing guidelines would adversely impact the admission process, disturb the teacher-student ratio, and create administrative imbalance across Kendriya Vidyalayas nationwide. It was also argued that the petitioners were fully aware of the current admission policy at the time of applying, and therefore, they could not later claim any enforceable right based on a discontinued concession.
Court’s Judgment:
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to discontinue the benefit of treating twin girl children as a single admission unit. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the challenge raised by the petitioners lacked merit, particularly in view of the fact that the benefit in question had already been withdrawn several years prior to the admission sought.
The Court began by noting that the special admission benefit earlier extended to single girl children and twin girl children was in the nature of a concession or privilege introduced as part of an administrative policy. However, such a concession, once withdrawn through a valid policy decision, cannot be enforced as a matter of right. The Court emphasised that privileges conferred by administrative instructions do not create vested rights in favour of beneficiaries unless expressly provided under statutory rules.
The Court observed that the petitioners were seeking enforcement of a benefit that was no longer in existence at the time of their application. The discontinuation of the policy with effect from the academic year 2022–23 was a settled administrative fact, and the admission sought by the petitioners was governed entirely by the prevailing guidelines for 2026–27. In such circumstances, the Court held that there was no legal basis to revive a withdrawn policy or to direct its application retrospectively.
On the issue of legitimate expectation, the Court rejected the petitioners’ argument. It held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked when the policy itself has been validly withdrawn and when the applicants are fully aware of such withdrawal at the time of making their application. The Court noted that since the petitioners knew that the guidelines did not provide any concession for twin girl children, they could not claim to have a legitimate expectation that such a benefit would still be extended to them.
The Court further emphasised that Kendriya Vidyalayas operate as a nationwide network of schools catering to students from diverse backgrounds and regions. As such, uniformity in admission procedures is essential to maintain fairness, transparency, and administrative efficiency. The Court held that selective or individualised exceptions to admission norms would undermine the integrity of the system and potentially prejudice other candidates who adhere strictly to the notified guidelines.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also observed that the admission process in Kendriya Vidyalayas is governed by a structured policy framework that prioritises merit and category-based reservations in a uniform manner across the country. Allowing deviations based on individual circumstances would not only disrupt the established admission mechanism but also affect the overall balance of seats, thereby impacting the student-teacher ratio and institutional planning.
The Court concluded that the withdrawal of the concession for twin girl children was a policy decision within the exclusive domain of the educational authority, and judicial review in such matters is limited unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or violative of constitutional provisions. In the present case, no such infirmity was found.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the validity of the admission guidelines currently in force. The judgment reinforces the principle that educational concessions are policy-driven privileges and not enforceable rights, and that uniformity in national educational institutions is paramount for maintaining equality and administrative coherence.