JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 12.05.2022 in WP Nos.12051, 12050 and 12048 of 2022 on the file of this Court.) Common Judgment Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. 1. These three writ appeals have been filed to assail the common judgment dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking direction for admission of their wards in respective classes, in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Anna Nagar, Chennai. 2. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners for the reason that after the recommendation made by the Chairman for giving admission to the petitioners' wards, when they reported to the school, the admission was not given despite the fact that they were called upon by the school to report for admission along with the required documents and the transfer certificate. The reporting date was 22.04.2022, however, in the absence of the transfer certificate or availability of the necessary documents, the petitioners could not get admission for their wards on or before 22.04.2022. In the meanwhile, the writ appellants changed the policy by bringing a new policy vide its Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022, by 4which, the discretionary quota given to the Chairman was withdrawn apart from the quota given to the Member of Parliament. In view of the Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022, the admission to the petitioners' wards was denied. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions finding that when the petitioners' wards were called to report for admission on or before 22.04.2022, along with original documents, the denial for admission could not have been made in pursuance of a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022. 4. It was submitted that if the petitioners would have produced all the necessary documents on or before 22.04.2022, the date given by the writ appellants, their wards had been given admission in the school, because the change of policy decision was by the Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022. In the light of the aforesaid, the prayer is made to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the prayer is made to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the discretionary quota given to the MP and the Chairman in regard to the admission was withdrawn in the year 2021 itself and as a consequence of which the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of discretionary quota and therefore, the challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge has been made because if the order is complied, there would be excess admission to the seats kept for the said classes. In view of the above, the direction of the learned Single Judge to give admission to the petitioners' wards needs to be interfered. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. 7. It is a case where the petitioners applied for admission of their wards in the school run by the appellants. An assurance was given by the school authorities for the admission of the petitioners' wards and accordingly, a letter was issued to report to the school along with the required documents. The petitioners were not in possession of the transfer certificates of their wards at that time and therefore, they took time to obtain and produce the documents required for admission. When the petitioners came with the required documents, the admission was denied in the light of the subsequent policy decision vide Office Memorandum dated 25.04.2022. When the appellants issued the letter for grant of admission to the petitioners' wards, they were estopped from denying admission to them. It is more so when pursuant to admission letter given by the Principal of the school, the petitioners hurriedly obtained the transfer certificate and produced it before the school authority concerned. After obtaining the transfer certificate, the petitioners cannot go back to the previous school and at the same time, if the admission is denied by the appellants, then this year would get wasted on account of the arbitrary decision taken by the appellants affecting the career of the students. 8. The learned counsel for the writ appellants has given reference to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.A.Nos.760 and 771 of 2022 dated 03.08.2022. 8. The learned counsel for the writ appellants has given reference to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.A.Nos.760 and 771 of 2022 dated 03.08.2022. The learned counsel has made a reference of para 31 of the said judgment to submit that the discretionary quota was admittedly used over and above the class strength and thereby, it would have adversely impacted the learning process on account of overcrowding of the classrooms. It would otherwise affect those employees who are transferred from one place to another and being the Central Government employees, they need to be facilitated for grant of admission to their wards. On the aforesaid reason, the Kerala High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. However, what we find further in para 32 of the said judgment is that the petitioners' wards therein had taken the admission in the other school as well and therefore, their career was not affected on account of denial of admission by the KV school. We find that the plea of overcrowding of the classes has been taken by the appellants without realising that they themselves had given admission to the petitioners' wards and if it would result in overcrowding, then there was no reason for the Principal to issue a letter inviting the petitioners to deposit the fee and documents for admission. In fact, the recommendation of the Chairman was accepted and in turn, a letter was sent to the petitioners to produce the relevant documents for admission. On account of that, the petitioners obtained transfer certificate and now, if admission is denied, it would adversely affect the career of their wards. In view of the above, we are not convinced about the application of the judgment of the Kerala High Court to the case on hand. 9. It is, however, made clear that the judgment under challenge should be taken to be an exception and not to be quoted as a precedent. It was given under peculiar circumstances and otherwise, now there is a change in the policy decision. 9. It is, however, made clear that the judgment under challenge should be taken to be an exception and not to be quoted as a precedent. It was given under peculiar circumstances and otherwise, now there is a change in the policy decision. The new policy has come, thus, the admission to the students would be given now as per the new policy and otherwise, the appellants have withdrawn the policy of discretionary quota to the Chairman and also the Member of Parliament and thereby, the judgment of the learned Single Judge would be applicable in personam and not in rem because now the admission would be governed by the new policy dated 25.04.2022. Thus, the admission in the KV schools would be governed by the new policy and for that, there would be no discretionary quota to the Chairman or the Member of Parliament. 10. We, however, do not find any error in the judgment under challenge, but a clarity is made that it would be applicable in personam and therefore, it would not be taken as a precedent for any purpose. The judgment of the Kerala High Court cannot be applied for the reason that the two petitioners therein had taken admission in other schools and therefore, the students' career was not affected, while, in the instant case, the petitioners' wards have obtained the transfer certificate from the earlier school, thus, these writ appeals are disposed of with the observations made above. However, the writ appellants would give admission to the students at the earliest, preferably within one week, so that their studies may not be affected further. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are closed.