Students Under Age Of 6 Years Having Completed Pre-School Educational Curriculum Won’t Be Denied Admission To Class 1: Himachal Pradesh HC
|The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that the students under the age of six years and who have completed pre-school educational curriculum, will not be denied admission to Class 1.
The Court observed thus in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Monika Sharma and other related writ petitions against the communications issued by the Government with respect to implementation of National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP) in the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Satyen Vaidya held, “We, thus, allow the prayers made in the petitions to the extent that the 2nd and 3rd respondents shall be under mandate to implement the NEP-2020 in a phased manner as suggested vide communication dated 31.3.2021 issued by the Union of India and further those students who are under the age of 6 years and have already completed pre-school educational curriculum will not be denied admission to Class-1st for academic session 2024-25.”
Advocate Suman Thakur represented the petitioners while Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Balram Sharma represented the respondents.
Case Background -
The petitioners were espousing the cause of those students, who would be aged less than 6 years even as on September 30, 2024 but have already completed their pre-school curriculum and were denied admission to Class 1. The grievance as raised by the petitioners was that by issuance of communication, the State Government decided to implement provisions of NEP-2020 in an irrational and arbitrary manner and as a result thereof a large number of students (likely to number in thousands) will have to repeat the Upper Kindergarten Class (UKG) which will not only impede their intellectual and psychological development but will also cost the poor students in terms of money.
What has been mandated under Article 21A of the Constitution and the Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) is that the State is obligated to provide free and compulsory education to the children of 6 to 14 years at elementary school level. As per the provisions of RTE Act, a student once admitted to elementary education even if exceeds the age limit of 14 years, shall be entitled to free education till completion of elementary education.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “No doubt, State Government is within its jurisdiction to implement the NEP 2020, however, in light of what has been noticed above, we have no hesitation to say that neither the entire NEP 2020 nor any other provisions of law mandate the State Government to implement the NEP 2020 tersely. Rather, there are clear directions to do it in a phased manner. Because the State Government has not done so till 24.11.2023, it does not get a valid reason to do so abruptly.”
The Court added that, once the State has taken a conscious decision to implement NEP 2020 as late as in November, 2023, as is disclosed from the communication, the manner in which the policy is sought to be implemented is clearly arbitrary, irrational, and inequitable.
“In any case by forcing the students like petitioners to repeat the UKG class, the purpose of NEP 2020 will not be served for the reason firstly that the curriculum for Balvatika-1, Balvatika-2 and Balvatika-3 has not yet been formulated and pressed in service and secondly, there are no trained teachers to further the cause of ECCE. That being so, we do not find any rational in the approach of the State Government in not implementing the NEP 2020 in the State in a phased manner”, it said.
The Court emphasised that the State cannot be adversarial to the petitioners that too when there is no statutory mandate for the State to implement NEP-2020 in a particular manner and that the purpose is to achieve the laudable goals of NEP 2020.
Furthermore, the Court said that the State being welfare State is obligated to look after the varied interest of its citizens within four corners of law.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petitions.
Cause Title- Monika Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:9789)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Suman Thakur, Neeraj Kumar Shashwat, Ashok Kumar, and Mukesh Sharma.
Respondents: DSGI Balram Sharma, Advocate General (AG) Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocates R.P. Singh, and Anirudh Sharma.