Kendriya Vidyalaya Is Funded By People, Guidelines Can’t Be Commandments Worthy Of Worship: Madras HC Directs To Relax Age Criterion For Admission Of Class 8th Student

Justice N. Seshasayee thus observed, “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”.

Advocate D. Muthukumar appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate M.Vaidhiyanathan appeared for the respondents.

In the present matter, the petitioner is the daughter of a non-commissioned Air Force officer, who seeks a seat in Class VIII in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, who is the second respondent school. The petitioner’s entry into the Kendriya Vidyalaya was resisted on the ground that she should have been between 12 and 14 years old on the relevant cut-off date as prescribed in the Guidelines, but the petitioner was aged 14 years and 2 months and was, therefore, ineligible. Resultantly, the petitioner now has to pursue her studies in Army Public School, which is about 30 km.

Therefore, now she challenged the Admission Guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya, principally on the ground that it violates Article 21A of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 going against the policy of automatic admission of the children of service men.

The petitioner stipulated that she earlier studied in Army Public School and in terms of the admission guidelines, wards of the service men in armed forces are entitled to automatic admission on the basis of the transfer certificate issued by the CBSE affiliated schools. In the petition, the petitioner also relied on Article 21 A of the Constitution of India.

The respondents had argued inter alia that the petitioner's younger brother Shreyank was given admission to Class – I, because he met the age criterion as per the guidelines for the academic year 2021-2022, but since the petitioner could not satisfy the same, therefore she was denied admission. she could not be accommodated in Class VI. Further that the personal inconvenience of the petitioner in travelling 30 km a day to her school cannot be a criterion for challenging the Guidelines.

The Court, however, observing the circumstances and the contentions of the petitioner noted, “If the Admission Guideline on the age of the student as provided in the KV Guidelines is closely read, they do make an exception to physically challenged students and those in Class XII. This signifies that the age limit is not inflexible but can be relaxed for addressing special situations. However, according to the respondents, this can be done only if the exceptions are part of the Guidelines. And the irony is that in terms of the of 2023 Guidelines, Shreya can join class XII in this school, but not class VIII”.

“…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”, it further noted on the facts.

The Court very categorically also observed, “Shreya, to this Court is a test case. There may be, and surely there will be innumerable Shreyas in this country who may find themselves in identical situations. And, each of them is a national asset, which this country needs to protect, preserve and promote. 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”.

Accordingly, the bench also clarified that the exception to age-criterion as provided in the Guidelines may be made only to meet exceptional situations, and the ratio of the present order will have validity only till the first respondent makes suitable amendments to its Admission Guidelines.

Cause Title: Shreya Bhattacharya v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan