Medical Board's Opinion On Age Only An Estimation, Not Accurate: Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Class 6 Girl Denied Admission For Being 'Overage'

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside an order which had upheld a school's decision to deny admission to a female student in class 6 based on a report which allegedly indicated that she was about 15 years. 

Noting the authenticity of the student's birth certificate which was questioned by the school to deny admission, the court said that subjecting the student to medical examination was "wholly unjustified and high-handed".

A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar in its September 24 order held that the opinion of the medical board constituted by the Chief Medical Officer to check the student's age, was "not accurate" and had only "given an estimation". 

The Court observed that under Section 14 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, the age of the child shall be either determined by birth certificate issued under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1886, or any other such document as may be prescribed.

Examining the brochure relied on by the respondents, the Court observed that the provision for examination by the medical board is applicable only when proof of age provided is other than what is mentioned under Section 14 of the 2009 Act.

"The School at best could get the authenticity of the certificate checked," the court said. 

It further said that the student's birth certificate was authenticated through independent agency of the Government counsel who produced the report, authenticating the certificate and had also produced further material like family register supporting the student's date of birth. 

"Besides the above, the opinion of the medical board is also not accurate and is always given as an estimation only," the court held. 

Case Background

The petitioner student applied for admission to Class-VI, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, with January 25, 2011 as her birth date supported by birth certificate, aadhaar card and vaccination certificate. She was selected in the merit list. However, the principal of the institution, suspecting her age, sent the student for a medical examination.

On the opinion/report of the Chief Medical Officer stating that her real age was 15 years, i.e., two more years than the maximum age limit, the petitioner was denied admission. Aggrieved, she approached the single judge bench in a writ petition in November 2022 which was dismissed in March this year. Against this dismissal she approached the division bench in appeal. 

During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court directed the Standing Counsel to get a report pertaining to authenticity of the birth certificate relied upon by the petitioner. Time was also granted to the petitioner counsel to determine whether the petitioner had studied Class-VI and Class-VII during the sessions 2022-23 and 2023-24 at some other school.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not studied at any other school in the interim. Upon the Standing Counsel verifying the authenticity of the birth certificate, petitioner's counsel contended that rejection of admission by the respondents was unjustified. 

He further contended that under Section 4 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the petitioner should be admitted in an age-appropriate class as she could not complete her education due to being denied admission by the respondents.

Counsel for the respondent argued that admission was based on the brochure of the institution. Once the medical board found her to be overage, denial of admission was justified. It was further contended that the petition has been rendered infructuous on account of the petitioner being overage for Class-VI since denial of admission.

Findings

The division bench observed that the single judge bench without examining the aspects in the matter had dismissed the student's plea while relying on judgment–wherein crucial details like the doctor's signature, date, etc. were missing–which was different on facts from the present student's case.

"The petitioner had approached the Court in time, i.e., within one month of passing of the order by the respondents on 20.10.2022 and, therefore, she cannot be made to suffer on account of delay in decision of the writ petition and the present special appeal," the court said. 

It thereafter referred to the Bombay High Court's division bench's decision in Pritam Vijay Anuse and others Vs. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others wherein the court had granted the student admission into Class VII on cancellation of admission into Class VI.

Accordingly, the bench set aside the single judge bench's order and allowed the plea. It further directed the respondents to "accord admission" to the student in a class appropriate to her age in terms of Section 4 of the Act within a period of two weeks.

Case Title: Km Sakshi v. Govt Of India And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 445 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order