AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the decision of the respondents identifying option 2 as the correct answer to question No. 63, is assailed mainly on the ground that the key answer fixed as option 2 is demonstrably wrong, as under the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2009”), there are situations where a child could not get admission at the age of 6 years or even after having been granted admission at the age of 6, would not complete the elementary education within the age limit of 14 years, in that case, he is entitled to free elementary education even after 14 years.
The provisions contained in Chapter II of the Act of 2009 deal with general situations as envisaged in Section 3 and then with exceptional situations which are dealt with in Section 4.
The question, on its plain reading, only seems to expect answer to situation as contemplated under a normal situation provided under Section 3.
Though learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant sought to argue the matter in detail and seeks indulgence through inferential process of logic and reasoning that it is key answer No. 4 which is more appropriate and comprehensive, keeping in view the limited scope of judicial review, as enumerated in plethora of decisions of the Supreme Court, such a course of long drawn inferential process is not permissible to interdict selection process and the correctness of the model answer key. This has been a consistent legal position since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. [1983 (4) SCC 309], successively referred to and relied in several decisions of Supreme Court.
Therefore, no case is made out and the appeal is dismissed.