Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to admit the petitioner's son, namely, M.Prem in Standard I (2015-2016) in the respondent school. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows: i) The petitioner, who is an Electrician by profession studied upto 10th standard, that due to his family circumstances, he was unable to pursue his studies further and that he wanted to give best education to his children. He has two sons and the first son is aged about 5 years and the second is aged about 1½ year and his elder son, namely, M.Prem is eligible to be admitted in the 1st standard. ii) It is submitted that on seeing the admission notice issued by the respondent for standard I, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent on 10.03.2015 along with all the documents. Thereafter, the respondent informed him that a draw of lot would be held on 17.03.2015 at 09:30 a.m. in the school premises and he was also asked to attend the lot on that day, in which, his son was selected for admission in the 1st standard in the respondent school. iii) It is further submitted that after completion of the lot, the respondent asked him to drive his motorcycle along with the staff of 1st respondent to measure the distance between his house and the school. Since the speedometer of his motorcycle had shown the kilometre as 6 Kms from the school, the respondent informed the petitioner that his son is not eligible for admission, as the house should be situated within 5 kms radius. iv) It is the submission of the petitioner that the distance between his house and the school is only 3 kms and in the route to his house from the school, there is a big pond and over bridge, through which people used to reach the school and at that time, the kilometer is only 2. Though the petitioner personally explained the route to the respondent, they did not accept his explanation. In the prospectus, no where it is stated that the school should be situated within 5 kms radius. Hence, the reason assigned by the respondent for rejecting the application is wholly untenable and liable to be set aside. Though the petitioner personally explained the route to the respondent, they did not accept his explanation. In the prospectus, no where it is stated that the school should be situated within 5 kms radius. Hence, the reason assigned by the respondent for rejecting the application is wholly untenable and liable to be set aside. Moreover, the respondent did not pass any written order in this regard and the same was informed to him orally. 3. The respondent has filed a detailed counter, stating as under: i) The respondent, while denying the averments made in the affidavit has stated that there are more than 1100 Kendriya Vidyalayas functioning in India under the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Government of India. In Chennai region, there are around 46 Kendriya Vidyalayas and in each year, admission to Class First (I) has been made in accordance with the guidelines for admission to Kendriya Vidyalayas issued. The guidelines for admission for the academic year 2015-2016 were also issued and the same have to be followed by all the Kendriya Vidyalayas throughout India. ii) Though several conditions and guidelines have been prescribed in general, the method of admission in Class I has been enumerated that out of the available seats of fresh admission 15% will be reserved for SC and 7.5% will be reserved for ST. The short fall in the number of seats reserved for SC and ST will be worked out after considering number of SC/ST children admitted under Right to Education quota. It is stated that the child belonging to SC, ST, the socially and educationally backward class or such other group having disadvantage owing to social, cultural, economic, geographical, linguistic, gender or such factor as may be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification [Section 2(d) of Right to Information Act (RTE Act)] and the child with special needs and suffering from disability as determined as per the provision mentioned in RTE Act, 2009 or as defined by the concerned State Government, will be considered as disadvantaged group. Definition of weaker section denotes to the child belonging to such a parent or guardian (declared by a Court or a Statute), whose annual income is lower than the minimum limit specified by the appropriate Government. iii) It is further stated that proof of resident should be given by all applicants. Definition of weaker section denotes to the child belonging to such a parent or guardian (declared by a Court or a Statute), whose annual income is lower than the minimum limit specified by the appropriate Government. iii) It is further stated that proof of resident should be given by all applicants. However, admission could not be denied due to non-submission of proof of residence and a self declaration in writing from the parent about distance may also be accepted to this effect. Since Kendriya Vidyalayas are located at places with varied density of population, they have been categorized as follows for determining the limits of neighbourhood, i.e., Major Cities and Urban area (All District Headquarters & Metros) 5 Km radius and the places and areas other than included in 1 km above, 8 km radius. In the Admission Notice for I standard (2015-2016), it has been clearly mentioned regarding the distance from school to residence, besides informing that the admission secured on the basis of wrong certificate shall be cancelled by the Principal. iv) It is also stated in the counter that on 10.03.2015, they have registered 1217 forms for 1st standard admission and every registered form is allotted with a separate Registration Number. Out of 1217 forms 589 were eligible for RTE lot and the son of the petitioner is also one among them. In the form, the petitioner has stated that he is residing within 3 kms distance and on 17.03.2015, the drawing of lot took place in the campus and more than 350 parents with their children witnessed and participated the lot. As per the RTEC Act, Kendriya Vidyalaya have come under specified category in which only 25% of seats are reserved for SC/ST/OBC, economically weaker section and disadvantaged group etc. There are 3 sections for 1st standard and each section has a strength of 40 students and the total strength is 120 seats, out of which, 30 seats were allotted on the basis of 25% under RTE for weaker section etc., who lives within 5 km distance and the lot was conducted for the said 30 seats. Before starting the lot, it was informed to the parents that in case of any doubt in the distance declared by the parents, the same will be measured by the school authorities. Before starting the lot, it was informed to the parents that in case of any doubt in the distance declared by the parents, the same will be measured by the school authorities. Finally, the petitioner's child was selected provisionally in the lot and due to the doubt in the declaration of the distance, distance was verified using his own motorcycle through the shortest route and it was found that the distance is beyond 5 kms. Since the petitioner had purposely mentioned the wrong distance in the declaration form, the school authority has decided to withdraw the Provisional Selection of the petitioner's child in Class I admission and from 06.04.2015 onwards, the classes were started. v) It is the stand in the counter that a 5 years old child cannot walk through a big pond and over bridge and Thirupparankundram Kanmai exists time immemorial and it is used as Kanmai for irrigation purposes and the ponds should not be used either as a passage or road or for any other purpose. As per RTE guidelines, a child should be given free and compulsory education at the nearest possible distance. Many people tried to get admission under RTE by suppressing the true facts and the petitioner, instead of stating the kilometre as 6.4 has indicated the distance as 3 kms and therefore, the petitioner has not come forward to the Court with clean hands and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents on record. 5. It is seen that the petitioner wanted to impart good education to his children and decided to get admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Thirupparankundram. Though the petitioner's child was provisionally selected in the lot, on account of wrong declaration of distance from the school to house, the petitioner's son was denied admission in the 1st standard. In the application, the distance has been specified as 3 kms, but whereas on measuring the same by the school authorities with the petitioner's motorcycle, it came to light that the distance is 6.4 kms and not 3 kms. In the application, the distance has been specified as 3 kms, but whereas on measuring the same by the school authorities with the petitioner's motorcycle, it came to light that the distance is 6.4 kms and not 3 kms. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that there is a pond and overbridge in between the house and the school and it is surprising to note as to how a 5 year old child could cross the pond and over bridge, when it is filled with water. The respondent school is functioning as per the norms of RTE Act, that 589 applicants were eligible for RTE lot for the academic year 2015-2016 and that more than 350 parents with their children witnessed and participated in the lot. The children selected under RTE admission would get the following privileges: “No school fees. Instead, the Vidyalaya reimburse the amount towards the purchase of books, uniforms, and the conveyance charges are also being reimbursed by the school.” 6. In order to avail the above said facilities, parents throng in number to get admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The contention of the respondent that it is highly impossible for a 5 years old child to cross the pond and over bridge cannot be brushed aside. The stand of the petitioner that the distance covering the pond and over bridge should be excluded while calculating the entire distance by way of relaxation cannot be accepted, as other similarly placed parents (7 in number as stated by the respondent) could also approach this Court, seeking the same relief. The Court would definitely come to the rescue of litigants, when there is justification in the relief sought. Though the intention of the petitioner to impart good education in a reputed institution to his child is appreciable, the method he adopted to reach such goal is depreciable. The Court would definitely come to the rescue of litigants, when there is justification in the relief sought. Though the intention of the petitioner to impart good education in a reputed institution to his child is appreciable, the method he adopted to reach such goal is depreciable. The contention of the petitioner that he could not pursue his higher studies due to his family indigence and therefore, he wanted to get admission for his child in a good school, would only create sympathy on the petitioner, which also reminds me of a general proverb that those who make the worse use of their time are the first to complain of its shortness and that Lost wealth may be replaced by industry, lost knowledge by study, lost health by temperance or medicine, but lost time is gone forever. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the event of his son coming to know of the wrong and tricky method adopted by his father in getting admission in the respondent school, it will some how affect his relationship with his father in future. It is always to be remembered that institutions only induce children to get well equipped to compete with others, but deserving children can come up in their life like twinkling stars wherever they are put up. On reading the mood of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that the petitioner's application for his son's admission in the respondent school may be considered at least for admission in the next academic year, viz., 2016-2017. This Court cannot give such specific direction, as the admission will be based on the guidelines as notified by the Government every now and then under RTE Act for each academic year and the petitioner's case for admission to the second year may be considered in case he fulfills the conditions stipulated therein. Therefore, the act of the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner's on the ground of wrong declaration of distance cannot be faulted with. 8. In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.