Admission Guidelines Not Commandments Of Solomon: Madras HC Directs Kendriya Vidyalaya To Relax Age Criteria For Admitting Class 8 Student

Justice N Seshasayee observed that an admission guideline regarding age restriction was only a guideline of the school and did not have the force of a statute. The court further held that the could not be seen as "commandments of solomon" and must be construed reasonably especially when its strict compliance brought hardship.

"An Admission Guideline on age limit is only intended to be a guideline and cannot have the force of a statute. A guideline means what it says: it is a guideline, nothing more nothing less. A guideline cannot be elevated to the commandments of Solomon. It must be construed reasonably more so when the hardship its strict compliance produces is disproportionate, or even unjust absurd results, it seeks to achieve," the court observed.

The court also observed that Kendriya Vidyalaya's policy putting age-bar for young children in Classes 1-11 and lifting the age-bar for students in Class 12 who were nearing adulthood was both baffling and disturbed the conscience of the court.

"Children are national assets, and when they are in tender age, they need greater care and support, but here is a set of Guidelines that attempts at the opposite: No support for a child if it suffers age-bar, even by a couple of months as in the case of young Shreya, from Class I to XI, but when the child reaches near adulthood and ready to enter Class XII, the school lifts the age-bar with an offer of immediate support. It baffles and disturbs the conscience of the Court," the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea by Shreya Bhattacharya, daughter of an Air Force officer who was denied admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya on the ground that she was aged 14 years and 2 months while as per the admission policy she should have been between 12 and 14 years old on the relevant cut off date. The court was informed that denial of admission had caused great inconvenience and hardships as Shreya had to get admission at the Army Public School which was 30 kms away.

Shreya had contended that the maximum age limit prescribed by the school authorities was arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of Right to Education Act and against Article 21A of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan informed the court that the admission guidelines were in line with the Right to Education Act and that it was not arbitrary. It was submitted that Shreya’s personal inconvenience could not be a criterion for challenging the guidelines. It was also submitted that fixing age limit for admitting a child was a policy decision of Kendriya Vidyalaya and the court could not interfere with the same under judicial review.

The court observed that though admission guidelines provide clarity, consistency and uniformity in the admission to KVs across the country, the court had to interfere when the working of the guideline is manifestly unjust and incongruent to reason. Looking into the guidelines, the court noted that the same was not inflexible as the guidelines provided an exception to those in Class XII and physically challenged students. The court was thus of the opinion that the authority had to revisit its guidelines and take efforts to protect the interest of the children, who were a national asset.

“Is it not necessary, that KV as an institution, funded by We, the People, should share this national concern for protecting these young and blossoming assets? Set in the context, can the first respondent continue to plead that its guideline on age is a kind of Ten Commandments worthy of worship? This Court is constrained to hold a mirror for the first respondent to realise that it wastes no time to revisit its guideline on age and resolve the paradox that it has created for itself,” the court said.

The court also commented that it would have appreciated the institution if it had approached the issue with a reasonable sensitivity. Noting that Shreya celebrated her birthday four days prior to the National Girl Child Day, the court even went on to say that the National Girl Child day was not merely a function for photo session but for respecting the rights of a girl child, of which right to education was also a part.

“The National Girl Child Day is not for holding a function for a photo session for a souvenir to be published later in the year by the school, but for engraving the theme of the girl child, her growth, in the collective consciousness of society, and the need for respecting the rights of a girl child of which her right to education is a part,” the court remarked.

Noting that Shreya had a right to education and a right to hassle-free education within the meaning of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court opined that an exception could be carved out. Thus, the court directed the Principal of the school to admit Shreya by relaxing the age-criterion.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.D.Muthukumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Vaidhiyanathan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 315

Case Title: Shreya Bhattacharya v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan

Case No: WP.No.12893 of 2023