Lok Utthan Sansthan vs U.O.I. and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.—The petitioner-Sansthan, a registered society under the Rajasthan Societies Act, 1958 stating its deep concern to ensure social security of all segments of the societies, has approached this Court initiating writ proceedings by way of ''Public Interest Litigation'' assailing the legality and validity of Section 30 of the Right To Education Act, 2009 with the following prayer:

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that by appropriate order or direction the right of education to the children of the state be enlarged to each child immediately.

ii) By an appropriate order or direction the right of education be achieved by optimum utilization of Government resources.

iii) By an appropriate order or direction the Section 30 of the Right to Education Act 2009 be declared to be ultra vires to the extent it prohibits the year wise and class wise evaluation of educational inputs received by individual students to be promoted to next higher class or to the extent the school administrations have adopted the policy of inadvertent promotion of children from class 1 to 8th in Government schools.

iv) By an appropriate order or direction the state Administration be directed to evolve a mechanism to evaluate educational inputs of school students to a minimum standard so that individual school administration is not permitted to take reluctant approach and play with the life of the school children.

v) By an appropriate order or direction the Union Of India and State Government be directed to create sufficient infrastructure to ensure that each child gets his right to education irrespective of the parent''s disinclination to send the child to the school.

vi) Any other order or direction may also be passed to promote the object of quality education to school children as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised are: that by an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, 2009, the school administrations are promoting the students to next higher class, without ensuring proper assessment of the child deserving to be promoted to the next higher class which, according to the petitioner, has resulted in gross non-performance by the school teachers, at the cost of irreparable loss to the future generations of the country and to the education system as such. The petitioner has also questions the state policy of the education in changing the time of commencement of classes from 7.30AM to 10.30AM; particularly, with reference to Secondary School, Bad Deori, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material available on record.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that to impart compulsory and standard education is the primary duty of the Government and a universally identified necessity. The members of the petitioner/Sansthan, with an intention to prepare students of weaker Sections of 9th and 10th standard in Government schools, imparted quality education so as to enable them to complete with their counter parts of economically sound segment of the society.

It is further urged that in an informal test conducted by the petitioner/Sansthan, it was revealed that the fore knowledge to demarcate the base point for forward intervention was very poor. On an enquiry petitioner-Sansthan arrived at the conclusion that promoting the students up to 8th standard without formal evaluation and test of knowledge, is the ultimate cause and therefore, the present writ proceedings in public interest.

The learned counsel assailing the legality and validity of Section 30 of the Act of 2009; has stated it to be a legislation for political gains and a tool of statistical gimmick instead of facilitating quality education. Therefore, unless the students were put to test in order to assess their knowledge and skills in learning and actual input level ascribed to each student, the very purpose of imparting education would stand frustrated and, therefore, Section 30 of the Act of 2009 deserves to be declared ultra vires. Challenge is also on projected on the ground that the Scheme of promoting students upto 8th standard would be detrimental to the interests of the nation and would also hamper development of an individual on moral and ethical fronts since the young generations will be deprived of quality education for sustainable of developed nation and personal growth of the individual as a good citizen.

On being queried by us about the fact that whether the children of 9th and 10th standard whom the petitioner-Sansthan found lacking in fore knowledge to demarcate the base point, for forward intervention; were of the academic sessions after the mandate of Section 30 of the Act, 2009 was enforced? And were imparted education in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009?; the learned counsel was not able to furnish any explanation or evidence to substantiate the alleged findings arrived at by the petitioner-Sansthan, as a result of the alleged informal test conducted.

Further, there is no material available on record to sustain the averments made on that count. The statement made in the writ application that the present system of education in Government school as a farce, as it did not promote the acquisition of knowledge and the spirit of competition amongst children, is absolutely without any factual foundation. The petitioner has not laid any factual foundation to sustain such a vague statement.

Be that as it may, what should be the criterion to assess the acquisition of knowledge and the spirit of competition for the children of a particular standard, is an area for consideration of the expert academic bodies to decide, which may be examined by considering multiple aspects keeping in view the attendant facts, circumstances which may include social, political, religious and many other aspects. No straight-jacket formula can be evolved, which could be said to be perfect to test the acquisition of knowledge and spirit of competition.

The issue with reference to the commencement of the school timings, number of days in an academic session, curriculum curricula including academic and other ancillary activities necessary for the multi-dimension development of the children of a particular standard, in a particular age group, are the areas which require consideration by the expert in the field concerned. It is for the State to adopt a policy for education and admittedly the subject matter brought before this Court, questioning the policy, is not open for the judicial review without there being any factual foundation warranting such a review on settled principles of law.

The petitioner has not questioned the competence and power to legislate while incorporating Section 30 of the Act of 2009. At this juncture, it will be relevant to consider the text of Section 30 of the Act of 2009, which reads thus:

Functions of the National Advisory Council. - (1) The National Advisory Council shall function in an advisory capacity.

(2) The National Advisory Council shall perform one or more of the following functions, namely;-

(a) review;

(i) norms and standards specified in the Schedule;

(ii) compliance with teacher qualifications and trainings; and

(iii) implementation of section 30;

(b) commission studies and research for the effective implementation of the Act;

(c) coordinate with the State Advisory Councils;

(d) act as an interfere between the public and the media and the Central Government in creating awareness, mobilization, and a positive environment for the implementation of the Act.

(3) The National Advisory Council shall prepare reports relating to the reviews, studies and research undertaken by it and furnish the same to the Central Government."

Chapter 5 of the Act of 2009 provides for curriculum and completion of elementary education under Sections 29 and 30. The curriculum and evaluation procedure has been specifically incorporated under Section 30 of the Act of 2009, which reads thus:

Curriculum and evaluation procedure - (1) The curriculum and the evaluation procedure for elementary education shall be laid down by an academic authority to be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification.

(2) The academic authority, while laying down the curriculum and the evaluation procedure under sub-section (1), shall take into consideration the following, namely:-

(a) conformity with the values enshrined in the Constitution;

(b) all round development of the child;

(c) building up child''s knowledge, potentiality and talent;

(d) development of physical and mental abilities to the fullest extent;

(e) learning through activities, discovery and exploration in a child friendly and child-centered manner;

(f) medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in child''s mother tongue;

(g) making the child free of fear, trauma and anxiety and helping the child to express views freely;

(h) comprehensive and continuous evaluation of child''s understanding of knowledge and his or her ability to apply the same.

From a bare reading of the text of Section 30, it is apparent that the academic authority is under an obligation to take into consideration the elements as detailed out under sub-clause (a) to (h) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 30. Hence, the averments made in the writ application are absolutely without any substance.

The Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into force on 1st April, 2010. Every child in the age group of 6 to 14 years is entitled to 8 years of elementary education, in an appropriate class room in the vicinity of his/her residence. No child is to be denied admission for want of documents or even if the admission cycles in the school is over and further, no child is required to take any admission test. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has been vested with the authority to monitor the implementation of the rights conferred by the Act, 2009.

The Act of 2009 has been brought into force as a part of implementation of the directive principles of the State Police under Article 45 of the Constitution, which is part of Chapter IV of the Constitution. The rights in Chapter IV though, are not enforceable but for the first time in the country this right has been made enforceable by putting it under Chapter III of the Constitution, which entitles the children to have right to education enforced as a fundamental right.

The averments made in the writ application, while assailing the legality and validity of Section 30 of the Act of 2009, are not only vague and concocted but also have not factual foundation to sustain the statement, in view of the fact that there is a sweeping statement to the effect that the promotions of student to next higher class do not seem to be appropriate rather biased and hyperbolic and inflated. The petitioner has not placed on record any cogent, convincing and documentary evidence to sustain such sweeping statements.

The Scheme of the Act to which a challenge projected while assailing the legality and validity of the Section 30 of the Act of 2009, fall within the realm of fulfilling the directive principles of State Policy and therefore, within the ambit of public purpose.

The contentions raised even with reference to the policy decision of commencement of the academic sessions in the day, being a policy decision of the State, in our considered view, is not open to intervention in exercise of judicial review. It is trite law that it is not open for the Court to determine whether a particular policy decision is fair or reasonable. The Court are concerned only with the manner in which the policy decisions have been taken and unless the policy framed is shown to be absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary as well as based on mere ipse dixit of the executive authority or is an invalid being contrary to constitutional or statutory mandate, the same would not be open for interference by Court.

We have given our anxious consideration to the facts, materials and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the writ application preferred is without any substance and devoid of merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine.

Ordered accordingly.

In the result, the writ application is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.