Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Sireesha (Smt.) And Others vs Commissioner, Kendriya Vidalaya ... on 14 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(5)ALD378
Author: V. Bhaskara Rao
Bench: V. Bhaskara Rao
ORDER
1. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are challenging the change of date of reckoning the minimum qualifying age of a child for admission to Class I in Kendriya Vidyalayas from 30th September to 1st April of the academic year and the impugned proceedings in F.No. 19-42(G)/96-KVS (HR), dated 10-2-1997, as arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, unjust and void being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As an ancillary relief, a direction is sought for restoration of the status quo ante obtaining prior to the above proceedings.
2. Petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No.6116 of 1997 filed her affidavit in support of the writ petition. It is stated that Kendriya Vidyalayas of Central Schools are run by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, New Delhi, which is an autonomous body constituted by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. New Delhi, as a result of recommendations of the Second Pay Commission and they are affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, CBSE) New Delhi, with a common syllabus and curriculum of studies. Main objectives of Kendriya Vidyalayas are (1) to cater to the educational needs of the children of transferable Central Government employees and para-military personnel by providing common programme of education; (2) to pursue excellence and act as a pace-setter in the field of school education and (3) to develop the spirit of national integration.
3. It is further stated that till the last academic year i.e., 1996-97, the rules required that children seeking admission to Class I should have completed five years of age and not seven years as on 30th September of the year in which the admission is sought. Respondent 2 has issued the impugned proceedings to Principals of all the Kendriya Vidyalayas in Hyderabad Region and suddenly and abruptly changed the old pattern of reckoning the age as on 30th September to that of 1st April of the academic year commencing from 1997. As the admissions for the present academic year are scheduled to be held from 18-3-1997 to 27-3-1997, the children of the petitioners who are now in Upper Kinder-garten are not being given admission to Kendriya Vidyalayas for the reason that they do not come within the age criteria as on 1st April and hence they are compelled to continue to study in the same UKG Class and this will create a serious psychological set back in the minds of the children and will demoralise their interest in studies and ultimately it will affect their future career. It is asserted that CBSE itself has not changed the relevant rule but Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan has changed the rule with effect from the academic year 1997-98 arbitrarily and without any rationality and without consulting or inviting the opinion of the principals and other functionaries as well as the parents and the concerned public. Moreover, several schools which are affiliated to CBSE in Hyderabad Region namely, Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet, Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan etc., have not changed the old rule and the date for reckoning the age of the child for admission to Class I in these schools is 31st August. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. A copy of the impugned proceedings is filed along with the writ petition and the relevant clause therein reads as under:
"2. It has been now decided that the age for admission to Class I would be 05 years and above on the 1st of April of the academic year in which the admission is sought. Similarly, admission in other classes will also be calculated on 1st April of the year. Thus, a child should be 6 years for Class II, 7 years for Class III and so on as on 1st April of the year of the admission."
4. Writ Petition No.6826 of 1997 is filed for an identical relief. The affidavit of petitioner No. 1 is filed in support of the same and similar averments are set out in this writ petition.
5. The respondents are resisting the writ petition by filing the counter-affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, Regional Office, Hyderabad. All the material averments in both the writ petitions are denied. It is then stated as under:
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous organisation registered as a Society under Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860 under the Ministry of Human Resources Development fully financed by Government of India and it is running Central Schools through out the country including two abroad, one in Moscow and the other in Khatmandu. They have uniform syllabus and cater to the educational needs of the Central Government transferable employees including Defence personnel and affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.
6. It is then averred that the Board of Governors is its apex body charged with the responsibility of carrying out the objectives of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and responsible for the management of all affairs and funds of the Sangathan. The Chairman of the Board is either the Minister of Human Resources Development or a Minister of State or Deputy Minister in that Ministry while a senior Officer of the Ministry is the Vice-Chairman and other members being drawn from different Ministries, State Governments, Union Territories, Members of Parliament and eminent educationists including from NCERT, CBSE, etc. There are different Committees which are responsible for framing rules and regulations for the subjects allotted and they are,--
1. Finance Committee.
2. Works Committee.
3. Academic Advisory Committee.
The Academic Advisory Committee is entrusted with the responsibility of framing syllabus, rules and regulations regarding admission and other academic matters and it is headed by the Vice-Chairman of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan/Secrctary (Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development while the other members are,
1. Director of NCERT.
2. Chairman of the CBSE.
3. Vice-Chancellor of a University.
4. Principal of a Public School.
5. An Officer belonging to SC/ST Community from the Ministry of Personnel.
6. Joint Commissioner (Academic), KVS Member Secretary.
Turning to the crux of the matter it is stated that the Academic Advisory Committee at its meeting held on 17-1-1997 and also approved by the Board of Governors at its meeting held on 27-1-1997 resolved that the child should complete 5 years as on 1st April of the academic year in which the admission is sought. Thus, the date for reckoning of age for admissions to other classes would also be calculated as on 1st April of the year. This was communicated by Sangathan headquarters vide its letter No.F6-2/95-KVS (O&M), dated 6-2-1997 and this has come into effect from the academic year 1997-98. Thus, the same has been communicated to all Kendriya Vidyalayas under its jurisdiction in Andhra Pradesh and similarly other 18 Regional Offices located in different parts of the country have also communicated to all the Vidyalayas for implementation. In as many as 890 Kendriya Vidyalayas all over the country this change of age is implemented uniformly.
7. It is further stated that nobody enjoys any legal right to question the decision of the Academic Advisory Committee approved by the Board of Governors as far as the affairs of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are concerned and that these decisions are uniformly applicable to all the Kendriya Vidyalayas through out the country and abroad. Referring to the children of 14 petitioners in WP No.6116 of 1997, 10 of them belonged to the employees of this organisation and hence they are fully aware of the change in age in February, 1997 itself and 4 other petitioners are from other different Departments of Central Government including Defence. It is added that the wards of employees of the respondent-organisation are eligible for admission over and above the maximum enrolment provided they satisfy the condition of minimum age and there will be no difficulty for the admission to these children even after the last date for registration is over. In the case of the remaining four children, it is stated that the directions of the High Court are sought for.
8. Referring to the averment that CBSE Rules do not prescribe any age limit, the relevant rule is extracted. It is Rule 6.1(iii) and it reads:
"satisfies the requirements of age limits (minimum and maximum) as determined by the State/U.T. Government and applicable to the place where the School is located."
It is added that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan enjoys die status of a State for the purpose of running Kendriya Vidyalayas and it can formulate its policy. It is also averred that the academic year in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has been changed from 1st May-30th April to 1st April to 31st March, whereas the other Schools affiliated to CBSE have not changed their academic year and hence there is no comparison between Kendriya Vidyalayas and other Schools though affiliated to CBSE. It is lastly stated that Kendriya Vidyalayas are pace setting institutions in the field of education and the policy is decided by the eminent educationists of all over India having very rich experience in the field. In fact 890 Kendriya Vidyalayas will be admitting approximately 50000 students in Class I during academic year 1997-98 starting from 1st April, 1997 and any change at this stage will cause great hardship to the students admitted and all the students are the children of Central Government transferable employees including Defence, Para Military, BSF, CISF and public sector undertakings. It is also mentioned at the end that all the competitive examinations such as IAS, IPS, IFS, NDA etc., prescribed both minimum and maximum age on a satisfied date for the eligibility and the advancement in age by six months for admission to Class I will have no reflection for the eligibility of the competitive examinations,
9. A separate counter is filed in WP No.6828 of 1997 with similar averments.
10. An additional affidavit is also filed with the permission of the Court and several additional material papers are filed.
1. One of them is a recommendation of the Ministry of Human Resources Development recommending that the minimum age of admission to pre-
primary and primary classes should be reconsidered for being raised by one year. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is specifically urged to consider raising the minimum age of admission to primary classes by one year.
2. It is a circular dated 24-4-1996 to implement the recommendations of the Yashpal Committee. One of the recommendations is to raise minimum age of admission to pre-primary and primary classes by one year.
3. It is a communication from the Joint Commissioner (ACAD) of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatlian, New Delhi enclosing the extract of the relevant Minutes of 12th Meeting of the Academic Advisory Committee held on 17-1-1997 and also that of the Board of Governors in its 62nd meeting held on 27-1-1997. The decisions is that the date of reckoning of age as 5 years of admission in Class I as on 1st April of the year in which admission is sought.
11. The writ petitioners filed reply affidavits and commented upon some of the averments made in the counter and sought for allowing their petitions.
12. During the course of hearing Sri N. Rushender Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the decision dated 17-1-1997 is quite arbitrary; that there was no publicity of the change of the date of reckoning, that the same has not been approved by CBSE and that it is violative of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned proceedings changing the date of reckoning from 30th September to 1st April may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to admit the wards of the petitioners as per the old rules. Alternatively he contended that relaxation of three months may be granted even if the matter is held against the petitioners. Ms. V. Laxmi Devi, learned Standing Counsel for Kendriya Vidyalayas vehemently argued that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous body and it is an instrumentality of the State and it can formulate its own policy. She stated that the Academic Advisory Committee considered the recommendations of Yashpal Committee and Professor Smt. Muralidharan Committee which were accepted by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India and at the instance of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, the above change has been effected and it is applicable to all 890 Kendriya Vidyalayas all over the country and abroad. The contentions that the decision was arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice or that there was no publicity before effecting change has been denied by her and she has taken support of the material papers filed by her along with the counter as well as additional counter and contended that the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned change in reckoning the minimum age.
13. I applied my anxious consideration to all the above contentions.
14. It is on record that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous organisation fully financed by Government of India under the Ministry of Human Resources Development. There are as many as 890 Kendriya Vidyalayas spread over the breadth and length of India besides one in Moscow and another in Khatmandu. They have a uniform syllabus to cater to the educational needs of the Central Government employees (transferable) including Defence personnel and they all affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. Affiliation does not, however, mean that CBSE would in any way interdict in the functioning of the Sangathan. The Board of Governors is responsible for the management of its affairs and its Chairman is no other than the Union Minister for Human Resource Development and its Vice-Chairman is one of the senior officers in the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The Members of the Board are drawn from different Ministries, State Governments, Union Territories, Members of Parliament and eminent educationists. It is this composition of the Board that reflects its high profile and combines in itself the best administrative and academic talent available in this country. The Sangathan has its own administrative machinery which functions from New Delhi with Regional Offices at various regional centres. It is evident from the counter affidavit that there are three important Committees which are responsible for framing rules and regulations for the subjects allotted to each Committee. They are-
1. Finance Committee.
2. Works Committee.
3. Academic Advisory Committee.
It is the Academic Advisory Committee that is responsible for framing the syllabus, rules and regulations regarding admission and other academic matters and it is headed by the Vice-Chairman of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan/Secrctary (Education), Ministry of Human Resource Development and consists of-
1. Director of NCERT.
2. Chairman of CBSE.
3. Vice-Chancellor of a University.
4. Principal of a Public School.
5. An Officer belonging to SC and ST Community from the Ministry of Personnel.
6. Joint Commissioner (Academic), KVS Member Secretary.
These infrastructural aspects will have to be kept in view while considering the contentions raised in the writ petitions.
15. On behalf of the writ petitioners it is mainly contended that the action of the respondents in changing the date of reckoning the minimum age for admission to Class I is arbitrary. I shall examine whether it is arbitrary.
16. It is not in dispute that the minimum age for admission to Class I is 5 years. Till the academic year 1996-97, the child should have completed 5 years of age as on 30th September, but the said date is now sought to be reckoned from 1st of April. The reason for the above change appears to be that the academic year also is now changed from 1st May-30th April to 1st April-31st March and the admissions take place in the month of March. Therefore, the authorities thought that the date of reckoning the age should be from 1st April. This decision was taken by the Academic Advisory Committee at its meeting held on 17-1-1997 and the same has been approved by the Board of Governors at its t meeting held on 27-1-1997. In this context it is pertinent to refer to a letter addressed by the Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, dated July 7th, 1994. It is beneficial to extract the same hereunder:
"Y.N. Chaturvedi Additional Secretary Tele: 382916 D.O.No.F.11-9/94-Sch.4 Dear Mrs. Jacob, As you are aware, the Yash Pal Committee Report 'Learning Without Burden' suggesting ways and means to reduce the academic burden on school children and the report of the Ministry's Group set up to examine the recommendations of the Yash Pal Committee were discussed in the CABE meeting held on 15-10-1993. The consensus in the CABE was that while the basic approach of the Yash Pal Committee was sound, many of its specific recommendations required further debate preferably in composite groups of parents, educationists and teachers. As per this advice of the CABE, both the reports were deliberated upon in the State-level workshops and meetings and a number of States have given us their detailed response based on such deliberations.
2. In the 50th meeting of the CABE held on 2-3-1994 the Education Ministers of a number of States/UTs expressed their broad agreement with the recommendations of Yash Pal Committee read with the suggestions of MHRD Group and the CABE advised effective follow up with the State/UT Governments. The detailed responses that we have received from quite a few States have been studied here and a broad framework of suggested course of action developed, both for the States/UTs and the organisations connected with the Government of India like the NCERT, CBSE, KVS and NVS. A statement summarising the YPC recommendations and the points for follow up action is enclosed herewith. Column 3 of the statement lists out the points on which action is to be taken by the mentioned organisations.
3. You would appreciate that the Ministry, which set up the Yash Pal Committee, has the responsibility to take the lead in implementing the Committee's recommendations. I would, therefore, be grateful if you could get the annexed statement examined carefully and start implementing the action points suggested in column 3 thereof. I would also request you to send us a time-frame for implementing the steps suggested insofar as they relate to your organisation.
4. Looking forward to an early response from you. With regards.
Yours sincerely (Y.N. Chaturvedi) Mrs. Lizzie Jacob, Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Sing Marg, New Delhi.
Enc. as above.
Additional suggestions made by the MHRD Group Consensus Action to be taken by the bodies under the Central Government 1 2 3
1. The minimum age of admission to pre-primary and primary class should be recognised for being raised by one year.
These suggestions should be adopted for implementation KVS may consider raising the minimum age of admission to primary classes of KVS by one year.
17. The Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi also issued circular No.8, dated 15-6-1995 followed by another circular dated 24-4-1996 regarding implementation of the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee i.e. , Prof. Yashpal Committee, after the same was discussed at the 2nd meeting of the Monitoring Committee on 1-12-1995. The, relevant subject is taken up as additional recommendations 1 and 2 :
"(a) Minimum age of admission to pre-primary and primary should be reconsidered for being raised by one year".
The action reported thereon is-
"In the schools of Union Capital Territory of Delhi minimum age for admission to pre-primary is 4+ and in class I 5+. Schools are advised to follow this norm."
Accordingly the matter came up before the Academic Advisory Committee held on 17-1-1997 and the following of the extract of the Minutes of the above-
"The recommendation of the Task Force constituted at KVS level under the Cliairpersonship of Prof. (Smt.) Muralidharan was placed for the consideration of the Academic Advisory Committee meeting in its 10th Meeting held on 6-7-1994. Among these recommendations, the recommendation of strengthening of Primary Education in KVS inter alia included that the age of admission in Class I should not be less than 06 years as on 30th September of the year in which admission is sought. It was decided that it should be examined in detail as in this case the student's will be completing 18 years in Class XII and this may create certain problems of discipline in the Kendriya Vidyalayas.
The Yashpal Committee Report, which was accepted by the Government, also recommended that the age of admission in Class I should be 06 years. This recommendation is given in the additional recommendations. The NCERT has also been advocating the minimum age of +04 for pre-primary classes and +06 for class I, as it will help sound development of the various faculties of the children. This has been examined in KVS and the present position is that a child who completes 05 years as on 30th September of the year in which admission is sought is given admission in Class I. Now, since KVS has already changed its academic session from April to March from the year 1996, and admission in Class I are done in the month of April, some of the children who are admitted in Class I would be only 4-1/2 years of age at the beginning of the academic session and at this stage the child is neither physically nor mentally prepared to acquire the competencies as defined by the minimum levels of learning by NCERT. However, in order to reduce the gap, it is proposed that the minimum age of 05 years of the child may be calculated as on 1st April of the year in which the admission is sought so that the child completes at least 05 years at the beginning of the academic session. A five year old child can take up the load of learning. Thus the student will be 16 years in class XII and this would be the appropriate age for completion of schooling.
The age for fresh admission in class II and upwards will also be calculated accordingly from the session 1997-98, as per the following table :
For admission to class The student should complete the under mentioned years of age on 1st April of the school year in which admission is sought.
I 05 years _ _ _ _ XII 16 years."
The resolution of the meeting is in the following terms:
"Item No.4 : Reckoning of age for admission in Class I and above.
The Committee approved the date of reckoning of age as five years for admission in Class I as on 1st April of the year, in which admission is sought."
The Board of Governors of Kendriya Vidyalayas approved the above minutes of the Academic Advisory Committee meeting at its 62nd meeting held on 27-1-1997. In view of the above decision of the Academic Advisory Committee as approved by the Board of Governors, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan issued a circular bearing No.F.6-2/95-KVS (O&M), dated 6-2-1997. The relevant matter is extracted below:
"The issue of reckoning of date of birth for admission in class I so that the child complete 5 years of age on the date of admission has been examined. Academic Advisory Committee of KVS has approved in its meeting held on 17-1-1997 and also adopted by the BOGs in its meeting held on 27-1-1997 that the child should complete 5 years on 1st of April of the Academic Session in which the admission is sought. The date for reckoning of age for admission in other classes will also be calculated on 1st April of the year. Thus a child should be 6 years for class II, 7 years for class III and so on as on 1st April of the year of admission."
The Assistant Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan Regional Office, Hyderabad in turn issued a circular to all principals of all Kendriya Vidyalayas of Hyderabad Region on 10-2-1997. The relevant matter is extracted below :
"It has been now decided that the age for admission to Class I would be 05 years and above on the 1st of April of the academic year in which the admission is sought. Similarly, the date for reckoning of age for admission in other classes will also be calculated on 1st April of the year. Thus a child should be 6 years for Class II, 7 years for Class III and so on as on 1st April of the year of the admission."
18. A conspectus of the entire material extracted above would go to show that the basis for the change of reckoning the minimum age is Prof. Yashpat Committee Report followed by the recommendations of the Task Force chaired by Prof. (Smt.) Muralidharan. The extract of the minutes of the 12th meeting of Academic Advisory Committee are self-contained. Evidently the Academic Advisory Committee, after full deliberations, decided to change the date of reckoning from 30th September to 1st April. It appears to have been done with a view to implement the recommendation of the Yashpal Committee to raise the minimum age by one year and for that purpose, the date of reckoning is advanced to 1st April and in effect the minimum age stands enhanced by 6 months. The table appended to the minutes specifically shows that a child who is admitted into I Class at the completed age of 5 years would be 16 years of .age at XII class level and thereafter he goes to the College. It is not as though this decision is taken by any individual or that it was done without any basis or without any deliberations. I, therefore, fail to understand as to how a collective decision of the Academic Advisory Committee consisting of several eminent educationists can be called arbitrary. 1, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of Sri Rushender Reddy.
19. It is next contended that there was no publicity of the change of date of reckoning; that the same has not been approved by CBSE and that it is violative of principles of natural justice. As regards the approval by CBSE it has been brought on record in preceding paras that circular No.8, dated 15-6-1995 followed by another circular dated 24-4-1996, which are extracted above, were issued by CBSE Advisor of the Schools to adopt the minimum age to pre-primary at 4+ and to Class I at 5+. It cannot, therefore, be contended that CBSE has not approved this change. Though at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that this change is in effect a raise in the minimum age for admission to Class I. What was earlier on 30th September is now required to be completed on 1st April itself and obviously it amounts to a raise in the minimum age which is contemplated by Yashpal Committee Report and the circulars of CBSE.
20. The argument that there was no publicity of the change of date of reckoning and that it is violative of principles of natural justice appears to be beyond any comprehension. The persons who are working in Kendriya Vidyalayas or associated with their functioning have already known this fact as soon as the Principals of Kendriya Vidyalayas have received the communication from their Regional Office. All those who are desirous of seeking admission are expected to obtain a Form of Application and at that stage, one is bound to know about the change. Moreover, the change in effect has advanced the date of reckoning. Therefore, a child who is going to be qualified for admission on 30th September would not miss the opportunity to seek admission if the same is advanced. Even in the event of converse case, viz., if the date of reckoning is postponed, there is every likelihood of the child crossing the minimum required age, but since no maximum age is prescribed as a bar for admission, no one can have any grievance. Viewing from any angle, I am unable to understand as to how the rights of the petitioners are in any way affected.
21. The thrust of argument of Sri Rushender Reddy is that the children of the petitioners who would have completed the minimum age by 30th September will have to wait till 1st April of next year to become eligible for admission and they have to sit at home for about 6 months and this will have adverse effect in the long run. In my view, it is a far-fetched and imaginary apprehension. A table is appended to the minutes of Academic Advisory Committee meeting dated 17-1-1997 and it has clearly demonstrated therein that the child will reach the age of 16 years at the level of XII class examination. Thereafter, he has to go College and then only it can be said that he has attained sufficient maturity of mind.
22. Above all the academic year in Kendriya Vidyalayas commences from 1st April and the process of admissions is taken up during March and hence the date of reckoning also is sought to be changed from 30th September to 1st April. That appears to be a valid and reasonable ground for the impugned change apart from other grounds.
23. It is lastly urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the change may be directed to be brought into effect from the next academic year and alternatively to relax the age by 3 months wherever necessary. The learned Standing Counsel for Kendriya Vidyalayas Sangathan on the other hand submitted that the change has already been brought into effect and admissions have been finalised and that there is no reason for postponing the implementation of the change. As regards the relaxation of age, she stated that there is no provision in the Rules empowering the authorities to grant relaxation and hence, the respondents are helpless. It is true that no rationale appears to exist to postpone the implementation of the change. The academic year has already commenced from 1st April, 1997 and admissions appear to have been completed by now. There has been an assurance from the respondents that the directions of this Court will be honoured even if any of the petitioners have not submitted their applications for admission. In such a case, it would be enough if the authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners if they fulfil the minimum age requirement as on 1st April, 1997 and to admit them into Class I, When there is no provision for relaxation of the minimum age in the Rules, this Court will be slow in issuing any such direction and more so as the petitioners will be eligible for admission for the next academic year.
24. For all the reasons given above, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed, but without costs.