Independent Schools??? ... vs Central Board Of Secondary ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 2215 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of decision: 26th April, 2011

+                         WP(C) NO.6297/2010

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS' FEDERATION
OF INDIA (REGD.)                               ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Ms. Shobha with Mr. Mohinder Pal
                          Thakur and Mr. Arun Lal, Advocates

                                    Versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
& ANR                                     ..... Respondents
               Through: Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate for R-1
                        Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may
       be allowed to see the judgment?                           NO

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                    NO

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported                   NO
       in the Digest?


RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, claiming to be an All-India association of schools

affiliated inter alia to the respondent no.1 Board and working for the interest

of the said schools and to assist them in their quest for excellence in

education, has filed this writ petition impugning the Circular No. 39 dated

20th September, 2009, Circular No.40 dated 29 th September, 2009 of the

respondent no.1 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and seeking

quashing thereof. It is the plea of the petitioner, that the said Circulars

introducing Grading System for classes IXth and Xth and abolishing the

examination in class Xth, though claiming to be "examination reforms", are

not reformative as intended in the National Curriculum Framework 2005;

place multifold burden on the students, increase the workload of the

teachers; have been issued in haste; will produce a domineering attitude

amongst teachers and which would be detrimental to the interest of the

students; are at mismatch with the other examination Boards etc. It is not as

if the petitioners have not had a hearing in the matter. Even though the

Circulars aforesaid impugned in this petition record that the respondent

CBSE had been discussing the matter with the stakeholders all over the

country, in pursuance to the orders in WP(C)2226/2010 and

WPC(C)3433/2010 earlier preferred by the petitioner and permitting the

petitioner to make representation to the CBSE and directing the CBSE to

grant a hearing to the petitioner, such representation was made and hearing

granted. The said representation was disposed of by the CBSE vide order

dated 12th August, 2010 also impugned in this writ petition. The said order

also records that the Circulars were preceded by wide consultations with

various stakeholders including principals, teachers, parents, students and

academicians and addresses the lacunas, inefficiencies, faults averred by the

petitioner.

2. It was, at the outset, inquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to

how this Court in exercise of judicial review can sit over the decision of the

expert body and which decision is recorded to have been taken after

consultation with all the stakeholders.

3. The counsel for the petitioner could only contend that the said

Circulars are not in accordance with National Curriculum Framework. It is

further contended that the suggestions given by the petitioner during the

hearing granted have not been considered. Various other

problems/difficulties are cited including of limited resources in the schools

to give effect to the scheme.

4. The counsel for the respondent CBSE appearing on advance notice

has in this regard also referred to University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao

AIR 1965 SC 491, P.M. Bhargava v. University Grants Commission (2004)

6 SCC 661 and Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India

(2009) 7 SCC 561 laying down that the Courts would be slow to interfere

with the opinion of the experts particularly the academic Bodies and that the

power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not

extend to as to what course should be taught in Universities and what should

be their curriculum and in the matter of policy decisions, the scope of

judicial review is limited.

5. Reference may also be made to the recent judgment of the Apex Court

in State of H.P. v. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra

Sangh MANU/SC/0459/2011 also holding that it is the pervasive power and

authority vested in the Government to frame policy and guidelines for

progressive and legitimate growth of the society and the Courts do not

substitute its views in the decision of the Government with regard to the

policy matters and must refuse to sit as appellate authority or super

legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation or policy decision of the

Government unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution.

Another recent dicta in All India Council for Technical Education v.

Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726 also held that the Courts

cannot interfere with policy, either on the ground that it is erroneous or on

the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. The Court

had earlier in English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of

Karnataka (1994) 1 SCC 550 on similar grounds refused to interfere with

the order making study of Kannada language compulsory in primary schools

for linguistic minority children and schools.

6. I have gone through the grounds urged in the petition. The petitioner

is seeking intervention of this Court over matters which are prohibited as

aforesaid.

7. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) April 26th, 2011 M