2013 (2) TMI 213 - HC - Indian Laws

Wards of the petitioners were in the age group of 3 years and plus and are eligible to seek admission in schools in a class which is described as Pre-Nursery - According to the existing criteria adopted by the schools, a child of 3 years, is eligible for Pre-Nursery and a child of 5 is eligible for seeking admission in Class-I District education Officer clarified that the existing age criteria of 3 years for Pre-Nursery and 5 years for Class I respectively on the Ist April of the academic year will enure on some further querries made by the four private schools of the U.T. namely It was stated that in view of the various representations made by various parents expressing difficulty in admission of their wards, you may continue with the criteria followed by you in the past. The contention of the petitioners is that all the schools ought to have followed a uniform policy and to substantiate this contention, reference has been made to a judgment of the Delhi High Court which while considering an almost similar controversy, constituted a Committee by the name of Ganguly Committee whose recommendations were accepted by the Director of Education and NCERT, Delhi. Held that - Provisions of R.T.E. Act do not contemplate the pegging of the age of a child at the admission to elementary school as 6 years and in the absence of any prejudice, the decision seems irrational and sans any foundation - Private schools certainly have a right to fix the norms and adopt a criteria for admission to their schools and if they do so, there is no illegality, provided such a decision satisfies the tests of fairness, reasonableness, transparency and being non exploitative but the reason given by them for doing so, does not seem to be rational Providing any cut of date is likely to have the impact of inclusion and exclusion both, so therefore any such date which is provided should have a sustainable logic based on serious inputs in this regard It is not the case that any serious inputs have gone into such a decision making, which inputs have been derived on a sound study of the issue. In the given circumstances of the case, Court directed the followings - (1) It is desirable and in the interest of the children and their parents that a somewhat uniform policy is adopted so as to create a harmonious process of regulated admissions. (2) Such a process would obviate the chance of children of different age groups competing with each other. (3) All the four schools namely Sacred Heart School, Sector 26, Carmel Convent School, Sector 9, St.John School, Sector 26, and St.Anne School, Sector 32, Chandigarh would, as a one time measure, consider the cases of all the children who are born upto 30.9.2006. (4) Schools may issue a communique about the directions given in this judgment which shall be sufficient notice to the desirous parents with no further publication of a notice. (5) The schools need not give any separate notice for this purpose. However, they shall display it on their notice-boards. (6) As per the norms set up by the Chandigarh Administration, the schools shall also be entitled to charge fee of Rs.100/- on the admission form given out by them. If the forms are available on the website of the schools, the same be downloaded by the parents and submitted to the school along with fee of Rs.100/-. (7) The forms shall be accepted by the 20th of February, 2011. Each school is thereafter free to fix the date for admission. The forms shall be scrutinised by the schools in another three days after receipt and thereafter a date shall be fixed for holding draw of lots as per their convenience, which date shall be given out to the applicants/parents. these directions should not result in euphoria for those who might perceive it as a vindication of their stand, nor should it be perceived as a derision of those whose decision has not been appreciated, but this should be treated as an opportunity to all, where we put our heads together to evolve a mechanism, where our young ones do not have to see a brooding gloominess in the process which otherwise is the beginning of their journey on the path of enlightenment. The entire material be thus placed before the Court. The Administration shall form a panel of educationalists, sociologists, psychologists to suggest a proper age for admission in the initial classes and to ascertain a uniform policy. Adjourned to 27.4.2011.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Change in age criteria for admission by private schools.
2. Uniformity in admission criteria among private and government schools.
3. Compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (R.T.E. Act).
4. Rights of private schools to set admission criteria.
5. Fairness and transparency in the admission process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Change in Age Criteria for Admission by Private Schools:
The petitioners, representing parents of children eligible for Pre-Nursery admission, contested the abrupt change in age criteria implemented by four private schools in Chandigarh. The schools altered the age limit for Lower Kindergarten (LKG) admission from children born between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007 to those born between 1st April 2007 and 31st March 2008. This change excluded children born in the latter half of 2006 from consideration for admission.

2. Uniformity in Admission Criteria Among Private and Government Schools:
The petitioners argued that all schools should follow a uniform policy, referencing a Delhi High Court judgment that established uniformity in pre-primary education duration and age cut-off dates. The existing government school criteria in Chandigarh allowed admission to Pre-Nursery at 3+ years and Class I at 5+ years as of 1st April of the academic year. The private schools' deviation from this practice created inconsistency and confusion.

3. Compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (R.T.E. Act):
The private schools justified the change by citing the R.T.E. Act, which defines a child as being between 6 to 14 years old and mandates free and compulsory education within this age range. They argued that aligning the admission age criteria with the Act's provisions ensured compliance. However, the court found that the Act does not prescribe a specific age for admission to Class I but aims to provide educational opportunities for all children, especially the underprivileged.

4. Rights of Private Schools to Set Admission Criteria:
Private schools, represented by their counsel, asserted their right to establish their own admission criteria as per the judgments in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka and P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra. These judgments affirm the autonomy of minority unaided institutions to manage their admissions, provided the process is fair, transparent, and non-exploitative. The court acknowledged this right but emphasized that the criteria should be reasonable and in the interest of the children and society.

5. Fairness and Transparency in the Admission Process:
The court scrutinized the rationale behind the private schools' decision to change the age criteria and found it lacking a sound basis. The change excluded certain children without a justifiable reason and created inconsistency with the practices followed by government schools. The court directed the private schools to consider children born up to 30th September 2006 for admission as a one-time measure, ensuring fairness and transparency in the admission process.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that while private schools have the right to set their admission criteria, such decisions must be fair, reasonable, and transparent. The abrupt change in age criteria by the private schools in Chandigarh was found to be unjustified and inconsistent with the practices followed by government schools. The court directed the private schools to adopt a uniform policy and consider children born up to 30th September 2006 for admission as a one-time measure. The Chandigarh Administration was also instructed to submit a proposal for a uniform admission policy to be followed by all schools in the Union Territory. The case was adjourned for further hearing on 27th April 2011, with directions to involve educationalists, sociologists, and psychologists in determining a proper age for admission and establishing a uniform policy.