Class 1 Admissions: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With State's Policy Fixing '6 Years' As Eligibility Criteria

The Karnataka High Court has upheld State government's decision fixing the admission age for class-I students in Government schools, aided and unaided schools from the academic year 2025-2026 as as 6 years.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed on behalf of a 4 year old toddler, represented through her father, seeking to quash the notification/order dated 26.07.2022.

Petitioner sought to study in LKG for the academic year 2023-24. However, on 27.05.2023, the school sent a mail indicating that petitioner is not eligible to take admission to LKG as she has not completed the age of 4 years as on 01.06.2023 and therefore, intimated that petitioner has to be retained in Nursery.

It was contended that the petitioner was admitted to Nursery based on earlier notification dated 11.03.2020 which prescribed minimum admission age for class-I at 5 years 5 months and for LKG at 3 years 5 months. It was contended that the subsequent impugned notification would not apply to the petitioner and any proposal to relax or enhance the minimum admission age limit for class-I has to be prospectively applied.

State opposed the plea saying the minimum age for admission was fixed by bearing in mind provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as well as National Educational Policy (NEP), 2020.

Findings:

Firstly, the bench noted that the respondent-school is run by the Central Government through its Ministry of Education and therefore, the school is bound to follow the guidelines issued by NEP. It observed,

“The respondent No.4 has adopted NEP, 2020 and therefore, the eligibility criteria of minimum and maximum age for registration for admission to class-I and above is rightly modified by respondent No.4 which is obviously in terms of mandate of NEP, 2020. The admission guidelines issued by respondent No.4 and by the State are found to be legal, valid and in conformity with NEP, 2020.”

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the guidelines have to be implemented prospectively, the court said, “The NEP guidelines in fixing the age criteria is based on overall global education standards...Experts have come up with new guidelines with a hope that a strong foundation of early childhood care and education would be given to the students and this is obviously aimed at promoting play-based, activity-based, inquiry-based and flexible way of learning.”

It added, “If the experts are of the view that policy focuses on formative and holistic assessment to reduce exam-related pressure and fear among students as the students reach to a higher secondary education, this Court under the garb of judicial review cannot alter the educational guidelines set up by the competent authority.”

Court said it is prima facie convinced that there is a core focus on enabling holistic development of students and therefore, one student's inconvenience that he/she will be compelled to repeat the class cannot in itself constitute a ground to interfere with the guidelines.

Though the bench agreed with the contention of the petitioner that this change in age criteria by NEP, 2020 is little late in the day, it opined, “It cannot constitute a ground to interfere with the said policy.”

Finally it said “The RTE Act, 2009 in itself places the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in a separate category coupled with the fact that all branches across the country being run by the same management are obliged to follow uniform criteria.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 11173/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 302

Date Of Order: 26-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate K N Srinivasa for Petitioner.

AAG Vikram Huilgol for AGA Kavitha H C FOR R1 TO R3;

Click Here To Read/Download Order