AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair
The petitioner is the father of Master Niranjan Krishnan. The child is aged 5 years 4 months and 27 days as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, his date of birth being 3.1.2007. The child is studying in the Kinder Garten in the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan School, Kozhikode. The school authorities insisted that only children who have attained the age of six years as on 1.6.2012 will be admitted to Class I. The said stand taken by the school is in tune with the Government order Exhibit p1.
The petitioner has raised various contentions in the Writ Petition. It is the main contention that the school is an unaided school and the Act is not applicable to the petitioner''s school. It is further pointed out that as per provisions of Section 12 of the Central Act, at least 25% of the children who are belonging to weaker and disadvantageous sections are to be admitted to Class I.
Heard the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for additional respondents 4 and 5, the CBSE.
The requirement as per Exhibit P1 is that the children shall have attained the age of six years at the time of admission to Class I from the academic year 2012-13 onwards. It also provides age relaxation upto six months by the Headmaster for the academic year 2012-13. The difficulty pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the child was admitted in the Kinder Garten, the provision was not there and unless the child is admitted in the academic year 2012-13, it will result in losing one year and it will affect the prospect of the child in future years. It is also submitted that the child has already completed 5 years, 4 months and 27 days at the time of filing of the Writ Petition and in Exhibit P1 there is age relaxation by six months and the shortage of age can be condoned by the authorities concerned.
The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the school is bound by Exhibit P1 and therefore only in terms of Exhibit P1, age relaxation can be granted by the school. Therefore, they cannot help the case pleaded by the petitioner.
The learned Standing Counsel for additional respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the provisions under the Central Act is applicable and CBSE will have to follow them strictly. It is also submitted that if at all any relaxation is possible, the Government alone can consider the matter. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government has issued Exhibit P1 so as to implement the provisions of the Act and even without Exhibit P1, the school authorities are bound by the Act.
There cannot be any dispute that the provisions of the Central Act is applicable and Exhibit P1 also cannot therefore be found fault with. Then the only question is whether relaxation is possible in a case like this, where the child is short of one month and a few days. Seeking for such a relaxation, the petitioner has filed a representation before the Government as per Exhibit P2.
In fact, this Court by interim order dated 18.3.2012 has directed the school authorities to keep one seat vacant in Class I and the said interim order is continuing.
In that view of the matter there will be a direction to the Government to consider Exhibit P2 representation filed by the petitioner and communicate the result within a period of one month, since the admissions will have to be closed by the school authorities within a reasonable time and the academic year is to start from 1.6.2012.
The petitioner will forward a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of this judgment to the Government for compliance. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that if the petitioner obtains relaxation, the claim for admission as far as the petitioner''s child is concerned, also will be considered.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.