High CourtsDivision Bench(1994) 04 AHC CK 0085

Assistant Commissioner Kandriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Others vs Gaurav Singh and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 23 April 1994 · Citation: (1994) 2 AWC 1139

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sodhi, J · R.A. Sharma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal No. 351 of 1994

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 303 words

S.S. Sodhi, J.—To reap the benefit of an advantage obtained by deliberate falsehood is the attempt here.

2.

The writ Petitioner Gaurav singh is the son of surendra Pratap Singh. Major V.B. Singh is said to be his maternal grand-father. Admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Faizabad is governed by Rules according to which certain priorities have been fixed. The first priority being for children of the Defence and Civil sectors while the 4th and the last one is for the children of persons not in service. At the time of seeking admission the name of the writ Petitioner''s father was mentioned to be that of his alleged maternal grand-father major V.B. singh and not his real father surendra pratap Singh. The record shows that it was on this account alone that the writ Petitioner was treated to be one coming under the first priority category and was, therefore granted admission. It is clear that had the correct name of the writ Petitioner''s father been mentioned in the admission form, he could not have secured admission. New when the time came for the form of the writ Petitioner to be sent fore the 10th class examination an application was filed before the Principal seeking to correct the name of the writ Petitioner''s father in the admission form.

3.

It would be apparent form the circumstances as narrated that the writ Petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to capitalise on the gains obtained on falsehood Such being the situation this is clearly not a fit case for the exercise of our discretion to grant to the writ Petitioner the relief claimed. As a consequence, we hereby set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow this special appeal with Rs. 1000/- as costs.