Refusal To Extend Concessional Benefit To Differently Placed Students Is Not Discriminatory And Violative Of Art 14: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has set aside its Single-Judge order that had directed a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan school to conduct supplementary exams for students who failed in more than one subject in Class XI to allow them to progress to Class XII.

While hearing a batch of letters patent appeals filed by the school against the High Court order, a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu stated that “it is within the absolute province of the educational authorities to prescribe the manner of assessment and it would not be permissible for the Constitutional Courts to tread upon the same.”

Referring to the Supreme Court case of University Grants Commission -vs- Neha Anil Bobde [(2013) 10 SCC 518], the Bench observed that “it will not be possible for this Court to substitute the system of evaluation adopted by the educational authorities merely because some other better mechanism is possible or that it causes hardship to a substantial number of students. The extracted rules make it abundantly clear that pass in all subjects in Class XI is mandatory for the promotion of a student to Class XII and it is only by way of concession that a student, who has failed in one subject, is permitted to appear in a supplementary examination in that subject within three weeks from the declaration of results, so that if he passes in that subject also, he could be promoted to Class XII without repeating Class XI”.

In such circumstances, the Bench stated that it would be absurd and fallacious to treat the refusal to extend that benefit to the students, who have failed in more than one subject, as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which would unwittingly result in transgression of the indefeasible right conferred on an institution to strictly adhere to the prescribed norms for maintenance of proper standards of education.

Advocate M. Vaidhiyanathan appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate K. Raja appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the school argued that as per their rules, passing all subjects in Class XI was required to progress to Class XII. Students failing one subject could appear in a supplementary exam within 3 weeks to pass that subject and progress, but students failing more than one subject had to repeat Class XI.

After considering the submission and acknowledging that many students failed this year, the Bench noted that it could not interfere in academic matters unless there were violations of statutory rules and setting evaluation methods was within the schools' purview.

The Bench, therefore, stated that allowing students who failed one subject to write a supplementary exam was a concession and not a right for all students.

The High Court, therefore, concluded held that “concession of restricting the conduct of supplementary examination to those students who have failed only in one subject, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, create any right of parity in favour of those who have failed in more than one subject to claim that they should also be extended the same benefit for promotion to Class XII in this case”.

Cause Title: The Deputy Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan IIT Campus v. Nikhilesh Gowthamaprabu

Click here to read/download the Judgment