Shagun Chaurasiya vs The Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2942 Tel

               THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                   WRIT PETITION No.11976 OF 2022

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners to issue writ of

mandamus declaring the admission criteria for the academic year 2022-23

of respondent No. 3, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to the extent it laid

down minimum 6 years of age for admission of a child in Class-I, as

arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of fundamental right to education of

petitioners as guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the

Constitution read with the provisions of Telangana Education Act 1982,

and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 and to

quash the same.

2. Heard Sri Y. Sheelu, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents No.3

and 4.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

parents of the petitioner children were working in Central Government

Departments and were residing at Central Government Staff Quarters at

Gachibowli. They were non-locals. They were planning to admit their

children who were above 5 years old in Class-I in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dr.GRR,J

Gachibowli located in the premises of Central Government Staff Quarters

at Gachibowli. All their children were eligible for Class-I admission as per

the guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for the year 2022-23, but

their children were denied admission due to the arbitrary guidelines of

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for the year 2022-23.

3.2 The petitioner children most of them had studied LKG, UKG by

the end of the academic year 2021-2022 in private schools. On

24-02-2022, the respondent No.3 had revised the guidelines for the

academic year 2022-2023 wherein the eligible minimum age criteria for

admission into Class-I was changed from 5 years to 6 years as on

31st March. The admissions for Class-l in most of the private schools in the

State were already completed by the end of February, 2022. The petitioners

were waiting for the notification of the Kendriya Vidyalayas for the

academic year 2022-2023. On 24th February 2022, the Kendriya Vidyalaya

had uploaded guidelines on the portal kvsanghatan.nic.in, just 4 days

before the admission process which started from 28-02-2022, wherein they

had changed the child admission criteria for Class-l from 5 years to 6

years. As per the guidelines of 2022-23, the admission online registration

would start from 28th February, 2022 to 21st March, 2022. The guidelines

of 2022-23 would state that "as per the mandate of National Education Dr.GRR,J

Policy (NEP) 2020, entry age for Class-1 has been revised to 6 plus years

w.e.f. academic session 2022-23". The National Education Policy 2020

had not mandated any such change in age from 5 years to 6 years for

admission criteria in Class-1. In fact, the issue of what should be the

correct age for school going children for Class-l had not been discussed in

the entire National Education Policy 2020. NEP had not made any changes

to the age of school going children for Class-1. It had not disturbed the

status quo i.e., above 5 years criteria for admission in Class-1 which was

being implemented by all the private schools affiliated to Central Board of

Secondary Education (CBSE) and schools affiliated to State and being

implemented by the respondent No.3. The NEP, 2020 did not mandate nor

confer any powers on respondent No.3 to issue guidelines to arbitrarily

change the eligible age criteria for admission in Class-I from 5 years to 6

years. The respondent No.3 was an autonomous body and not a statutory

authority. Therefore, the guidelines issued by respondent No.3 for the

academic year 2022-23 did not have any statutory force.

3.3 Section 7 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982 also states that

a child who had completed the age of 5 years should not be denied

admission in schools. NEP, 2020 under Part 1 School Education had

envisaged creation of infrastructure (pre-schools) for children of the age 3 Dr.GRR,J

to 6. After completion of pre-school, the children would move to Class-I.

From the time NEP was formulated (in July 2020) till date, i.e. for the past

two years, the respondent No.3 nor the Ministry of Education had created

any infrastructure for pre-schools. While on paper they sought to create a

rosy picture, in reality things remained where they were i.e. admission in

KV would start from Class-I. In such a scenario the respondent No.3 could

not adopt the mandate of 6 plus years, when it had not fulfilled the

condition precedent to it i.e., creation of infrastructure for pre-primary

education. There were no pre-primary classes in respondent No.3 or

respondent No.4, KV schools.

3.4 No study had been done by respondent No.3 before making the

change in age as 6 plus. The change was not based on any study which

could establish that 6 plus and not 5 plus was the correct age to admit

children in Class-I. The 'REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRE-

PRIMARY AND PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION IN DELHI" ( Ashok

Ganguly Committee) constituted by Delhi High Court in WP No. 12490 of

2006 vide order dated 7-3-2007, on comparative analysis of practices in

various countries and various states in India arrived at the recommendation

of 5 plus years for admission to Class-I. Further the IITs and NITs had

done away with the minimum age of 17 plus for most courses. It would Dr.GRR,J

further strengthen the case of the petitioners that when a child was eligible

for admission to IIT/NIT/Medical at the age of 17 plus, why make him or

her wait for one more year. The change in age was made without giving

sufficient time to parents to make alternate arrangements for their children.

No comments were invited from effected parties nor any public discussion

was held.

3.5 In private schools affiliated to both CBSE and State Boards, the

age of entry to Class-I remained 5 plus years for the academic year 2022-

23. Most of the good private schools of Hyderabad had closed their

admission by February last week. Thus the parents of the petitioner

children could not admit their wards in good private schools even if they

wanted to. Admitting them in private schools was not a practical solution.

They would charge fees in lakhs, which was unaffordable for the parents of

the petitioner children as they were Group B, Group C Government

employees. There was no tuition fee charged in KVs for boys from Class-I

to Class-VIII and for girls from Class-I to Class-XII. If the petitioner

children were admitted in private schools they would incur huge amounts

as school fee. Due to the arbitrary action of the respondent No.3, the

parents of petitioner children were forced to admit their children in Class-I

in private schools or wasting one year of the children. As such the Dr.GRR,J

petitioner children would be put to a disadvantage of one year as compared

to children born in the same year who had now completed 5 plus years and

could get admission in private schools. Most of the Government

competitive exams mandate maximum age criteria for writing exams. The

petitioner children would lose one year for no fault of theirs. The parents

of the petitioner children sent a representation through email dated

25-2-2022 to the respondent No.3. As there was no response from the

respondent No.3 to resolve the issue, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

3.6 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that

the admission criteria for the centrally established schools such as Air

Force School, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Army Public School, Bollarum,

Hyderabad and Vikram Sarabai Space Centre, Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala

for the academic year 2022-23, wherein the admission age for Class-I was

prescribed as 5 years as on 31-3-2022. He also filed the docket order dated

16-03-2022 in WP (C) No. 3667 of 2022 on the file of High Court of

Delhi.

4.1 The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4

submitted that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was an autonomous

organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 fully Dr.GRR,J

financed by Ministry of Education, Government of India with an objective

to cater to the educational needs of children of transferable Central

Government Employees including Defence personnel by providing

common programme of education to develop Vidyalayas as model in the

context of national role of Indian education, and to initiate and promote

experimentation in the field of education in collaboration with Central

Board of Secondary Education, National Council of Educational Research

& Training and allied bodies to promote national integration. The

respondents would run a chain of Kendriya Vidyalayas more than 1247

including three abroad, five Zonal Institutes and 25 Regional Offices

spread across the country. The Chairman of the Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan was the Union Minister of Ministry of Education and Vice-

Chairperson was the Additional Secretary of the Department of School

Education & Literacy, Ministry of Education, and Government of India.

The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was headed by the Commissioner. The

policy decisions of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan were taken by the

Board of Governors consisting of eminent educationists and administrators

from all over the country. The service conditions of Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan employees were governed by the education Code of Kendriya

Vidyalayas in vogue. In the functioning of the Sangathan, Board of Dr.GRR,J

Governors were constituted to approve the policy of the Sangathan. The

Commissioner of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was the Chief

Administrator and Chief Executive to implement the policies approved by

the Board of Governors. The recurring and non-recurring expenditures of

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan were fully financed by the Government of

India (Ministry of Education).

4.2 The National Education Policy was framed in 1986 and modified

in 1992. More than three decades had passed since the previous Policy.

During this period, significant changes had taken place in the country,

society, economy and the world at large. It was in this context that the

education sector needed to gear itself towards the demands of the 21st

Century and the needed of the people and the country. Keeping the

changing needs of the society & global scenario, National Education

Policy of India 2020 was approved by the Union Cabinet of India on 29th

July, 2020. It outlined the vision of new education system of India. The

Ministry of Education, Government of India had introduced NEP, 2020

which envisaged that the extent 10+2 structure in school education would

be modified with a new pedagogical curriculum restructuring 5+3+3+4

covering the ages 3 years to 18 years.

                                                                           Dr.GRR,J




      Level           Class                              Age Group

      Foundational    Anganwadi Pre-School/Balvatika     3-6 years

      Foundational    Class I & II                       6-8 years

      Preparatory     Class III & V                      8-11 years

      Middle          Class VI & VII                     11-14 years

      Secondary       Class IX & XII                     14-18 years

4.3 The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had adopted the National

Education Policy, 2020 and accordingly issued Guidelines for Admission

from the academic year 2022-23 & onwards. The eligibility criteria of

minimum and maximum age for Registration for admission to Class-I and

above had been modified by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as per the

mandate of National Education Policy 2020. The entry age for Class-I had

been revised to 6 plus years and maximum age as 8 years. As per the

mandate of National Education Policy, 2020 entry age for Class-I had been

revised to 6 plus years with effect from academic session 2022-23. The

other general guidelines with regard to the reservations, mode of selection

of candidates were un-changed, except the minimum age criteria for

admission to Class-I. These admission guidelines were applicable in all

Kendriya Vidyalayas throughout the country, except for Kendriya Dr.GRR,J

Vidyalayas located abroad and Dr. Rajendra Prasad Kendriya Vidyalaya,

President Estate, New Delhi.

4.4 Total 72 Kendriya Vidyalayas (70 single shift and 2 in double

(second shift)) were functioning under Hyderabad region viz. Telangana

and Andhra Pradesh. The admission guidelines for 2022-23 including the

age criteria was legal, valid and in conformity with NEP, 2020. The plea of

the petitioners seeking permission to make application with 5 plus age for

entry level was without any sustainability and contrary to the admission

guidelines 2022-23 issued by KVS and prayed to reject the same.

4.5 The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted the

final orders of the judgment of the High of Delhi in Aarin through her

next friend and natural father Sh. Pawan Kumar & Ors Vs. Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.1 stating that it was decided on 11-4-2022 in

their favour.

5. Perused the record and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi

relied by both the learned counsel. The said judgment is also on the same

issue. The said writ petition was also filed assailing the admission criteria

for the academic year 2022-23 issued by the KVS on 24-2-2022, which

SSC OnLine Del 1008 Dr.GRR,J

prescribed the minimum age for admission of a student in Class-I as 6

years or above. The High Court of Delhi observed that:

"20. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties, even though I find merit in the petitioners' plea that this change in age criteria brought about by the impugned guidelines on 24.02.2022 was a little late in the day, the fact remains that the same does not in any manner debar the petitioners from seeking admission in KVS, but it only postpones their right to seek admission in KVS to the next academic year. The respondents have urged that this change was necessitated to ensure that the NEP formulated after extensive consultations with the experts is made applicable all across the country, at the earliest.

21. No doubt, the policy which was formulated in 2020 is yet to be implemented across schools in Delhi, despite the same having been already implemented in 21 states but once the statute i.e., the RTE Act, 2009 in itself places the KVS in a separate category coupled with the fact that all branches of KVS across the country, being run by the same management are obliged to follow the uniform criteria, the anxiousness of the KVS to introduce the age criteria of 6 years in accordance with the NEP, 2020 is well understandable. I may also note that during arguments, the fact that as held in Neeti Singh Malik (supra), the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 is not applicable to the KVS, was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and therefore there is merit in respondents' plea that the KVS was obligated to adopt a uniform criterion for admissions in all its branches across the country.

22. Once the NEP, 2020 is not under challenge, the respondents' plea that the minimum age of 6 years for admission to class-I as laid down in the policy to ensure that the development of the child is commensurate with the class in which he/she is admitted, needs to be accepted. When, once a conscious and well considered decision has already been taken by the experts that the entry age for admission to Class-I should be 6 years, this Court cannot and should not interfere with the said decision of the experts. Merely because some Dr.GRR,J

inconvenience is being caused to the petitioners who will have to wait for the next academic year to apply for admission to the KVS, cannot be a ground to direct the KVS to make an exception for its schools located in Delhi. Any such direction will have a rippling effect on the age criteria applicable to KVS schools situated all across the country including states wherein the NEP, 2020 has been implemented and consequently, the minimum age for admission to Class-I has been fixed as 6 years in all schools in the said states.

23. The petitioners' plea that the age criteria of 5+ is still continuing in some of the schools like the Army Public School, Bangalore and Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, running under the aegis of the Union of India, overlooks the fact that the NEP, 2020 is being introduced in the country in a phased manner and the purpose of the impugned guidelines is to bring uniformity in the admission criteria in all the branches of the KVS across the country.

24. The petitioners have also not disputed the respondents' plea that they have already received 7 lakh applications for admissions to Class-I in furtherance of the impugned notice. These applicants are admittedly between 6-7 years of age and therefore, I also find merit in the respondents' plea that in case the petitioners and other 5-year-old children are permitted to join Class-I in the KVS, it would lead to huge imbalance in the class making the situation almost unworkable. Not only will the syllabus have to be re-worked, even otherwise, admission of 5-year-old children with children who could be almost 7 years old, would be a highly undesirable situation. The balance of the convenience also, therefore, tilts more in the favour of the respondents than that of the petitioners.

25. Reference in this regard may be made to the observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ayan Abdullah Osmani (supra) which reads as under.

"20. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the age criteria prescribed in the guidelines cannot be relaxed and should not be relaxed by the Court, as such relaxation amounts to perpetuating discrimination as those who are aware Dr.GRR,J

of the guidelines and did not fulfill the criteria regarding age prescribed in the guidelines did not apply and obtain admission, whereas the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after having obtained admission as per the guidelines, have sought the relaxation to obtain undue advantage.

30. The law in respect of granting interim orders in academic matters, has again been extensively considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dental Council of India v. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva, Mandal, Hingoli (2017) 13 SCC 115 : (AIR 2017 SC 1826), wherein the practice of granting interim orders and thereafter, to claim sympathetic considerations at the time of final hearing, has been deprecated and the respondent college in that case, was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30 Lacs.

31. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, any direction to permit the respondents who admittedly do not fulfill the eligibility criteria and had themselves obtained admission in accordance therewith in Class-II and have thereafter, taken a about-turn and challenged the same, to continue with Class-III and to treat their admission to be in Class-III, would amount to issuing a fiat directing the appellant school to disobey its own Rules and Regulations to which the appellant owes its existence and would be destructive of the Rule of law, as it would amount to issuing a direction by this Court to the appellants, to disobey their own laws".

28. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed, without any orders as to costs."

6. This court completely agrees with the reasoning given by the

Delhi High Court on the above issue and for the reasons stated therein,

considers it fit to dismiss this writ petition.

Dr.GRR,J

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J June 21, 2022 KTL