1. The writ petition has been filed seeking to declare 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 in Kendriya Vidyalayas, as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further direction is also sought to grant admission to the second petitioner to the first standard in the Kendriya Vidyalaya School.

2. The first petitioner is an employee of Indian Railways and the second petitioner is one of his twin daughters. The petitioners allege that the twin children are very emotionally attached to each other and have a strong bonding between them. The first petitioner sought admission for his children at Kendriya Vidyalaya and since they were twins, he believed that both would get admission in the same school. Accordingly, the first petitioner submitted applications, but only one of the twins was granted admission. Contending that the policy of the Kendriya Vidyalaya was always to treat twin children as a single admission, the first petitioner contends that, it is a matter of gender justice and equality that the twin children are not separated. It is also asserted that withdrawal of the benefit of reservation afforded to twin children is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence the denial of admission to the second petitioner is arbitrary, requiring interference by this Court.

3. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents it is pleaded that special category admission for a single girl child was introduced in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools in the academic session 2006-07 and at that time, a single girl child was explained as including twin girls as well and that in respect of such twins, it would be treated as a single admission. According to the respondents, the admission to the school is carried out on the basis of centrally notified Admission Guidelines, framed in the interest of transparency, uniformity, equity and administrative feasibility and that personal hardships, unless they are specifically recognised under the Guidelines, cannot confer any enforceable legal right. It is also stated that the special provision for single girl child quota underwent a change with effect from 2022-23 and thereafter, such a special provision does not exist. According to the respondents, pursuant to the applications for admission to Class I, submitted by the first petitioner in PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kollam in respect of his twin children, the same were processed based on the KVS Admission Guidelines for the year 2026-27. Kumari Apoorva Rajesh secured waiting list No.6 under Category I and therefore was granted admission on the basis of merit and priority, while the second twin child i.e., the second petitioner was assigned waiting list No.16 under the same category. Since admissions to Category I were completed upto waiting list No.12, the second child could not be accommodated due to non availability of seats within the sanctioned intake strength. It is stated that, in the absence of any enabling provision under the admission guidelines, relaxation could not be granted. Respondents denied the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation as the concession that existed earlier did not survive beyond 2022-23. According to the respondents, any deviation from the said admission procedure would compromise the principles of equality, transparency and fairness vis-a-vis similarly placed applicants who were awaiting admissions.

4. Sri. Adithya Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the twin children have developed an emotional bond with deep interdependence between them and hence if they are separated, that too at this young age, it would put them at risk, both emotionally and physically. According to the learned counsel, compelling the second petitioner to undergo studies separate from that of her twin sister would put the children at serious risk and hence the discontinuation of the benefit of admission previously granted treating twin girls as a single admission ought to be restored. The learned counsel submitted that, clauses 6.2 and 6.7 of the National Education Policy 2020 dealing with 'Beti Bachao Beti Padhao' would be achieved only if twin girl children are permitted to study together.

5. Per contra, Adv.Uthara Asokan, representing Smt. T.K.Sreekala, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya is based on priority and merit and the concession granted for treating twin girls as a single admission was withdrawn with effect from 2022-23 and therefore petitioners cannot claim the said concession as a right. According to the learned counsel, at the time when the petitioners applied for admission, they were fully aware about the absence of any such concession and despite the same, they sought admission, which is indicative of the fact that the petitioners had no grievance. The learned counsel also submitted that the entire process of admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya would be affected, if this Court issues any such direction and the policy as revealed from the admission scheme indicates that the teacher-student ratio should not be tampered with.

6. While considering the above rival contentions, this Court has to bear in mind that the first petitioner had sought admission for his twin daughters in a school recognized and affiliated with Kendriya Vidyalaya. Admissions to Kendriya Vidyalayas are governed by Ext.P11 Guidelines. Those Guidelines were issued in supersession of the earlier guidelines and were brought into effect from the academic session 2024-25. In the earlier Guidelines, there was a provision for treating twin girl children as a single admission. However, in the present Guidelines, there is no such special provision. On the other hand, the specific stipulation is that admissions are open to all. The Guidelines also lay down the procedure for grant of admission. There is no stipulation that admissions to twin girl children should be treated as a single admission.

7. The Guidelines for 2025-26 provide, in Part B, special provisions which prescribe categories of children who could be admitted over and above the class strength. The said concession is confined only to certain classes of candidates. Twin girl children are not included in the special provisions for the year 2025-26. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, such a concession was in existence only till 2022-23 and thereafter it was withdrawn.

8. At the time of applying for admission to the school, petitioners were wholly aware that the concession for twin girl children was not in existence, as per the Guidelines. Despite the absence of any such concession or special provision for twin children to be treated as single admission for the year 2025-26, the first petitioner applied for admission for both his children. Unfortunately, only one of the twins got admission while the second petitioner is included as 16th in the waiting list. As the petitioner was aware that the Guidelines did not provide any concession to twin girl children to be treated as a single admission, petitioners cannot claim any benefit even under the principle of legitimate expectation. In the absence of any stipulation in the Guidelines for 2025-26, there is no reason to assume that petitioners expected a concession for twin girl children to be granted. Reference to the principles laid down in the decision in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer and Others [(2005) 1 SCC 625] is relevant, in this context.

9. The challenge raised in the writ petition is against the discontinuation of the benefit of admission previously granted to a single girl child and twin girl children over and above the class strength by virtue of a special provision that was in existence. However as it is evident that such a concession was in existence only till 2022-23 and the said concession had been withdrawn more than three years prior to the admission sought for by the second petitioner, the challenge against its discontinuation has no merits. What was in existence was only a privilege given to twin girl children and not a right. Privileges conferred can be withdrawn at any time. In Ayurveda Shastri Seva Mandal v. Union of India [(2013) 16 SCC 696] it was held that a privilege granted to candidates in the matter of education cannot be transformed into a right.

10. Further, Kendriya Vidyalayas cater to numerous students across the country and are hence 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. Such conferment of benefit would prejudice those who had adhered to the stipulations in the Guidelines

11. Moreover, there is no right for the second petitioner to get admission to Kendriya Vidyalaya school, ignoring the scheme and manner of admissions provided in the Guidelines. The Guidelines being in the nature of a public notice, second petitioner had to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the claim of petitioners for admission to the second petitioner merely because her twin sister got admission to the Kendriya Vidyalaya. The decision in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Elna Chinchu and Another [2022 KER 41844], wherein a Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the withdrawal of discretionary quotas in admission, is relevant in this context.

In such circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed.