IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
Bharati Dangre, Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.
Savio Norvin Menezes and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, The Ministry of Education, Thr. The Secretary Education and ors. - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No. 966 of 2025(F)
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Goa School Education Act, 1984 - Section 29 - Goa Education Rules, 1986 - Amendment of Rule 21 regarding academic year commencement - Petitioners challenged the Notification dated 28.03.2025, alleging procedural impropriety and lack of stakeholder consultation - Court found the amendment valid, emphasizing adherence to legislative procedures and the necessity of educational reforms. (Paras 1, 8, 26)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of interference in policy decisions - Courts should not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or violates fundamental rights - The court upheld the government's decision to amend the academic calendar, citing the need for compliance with the National Education Policy. (Paras 16, 25)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, parents of students, challenged the government's Notification altering the academic calendar for Grades 6-10 and 12, claiming it was issued without proper consultation and in haste.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Notification, stating it was issued following due process and aimed at aligning with national educational standards.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the Notification, adherence to procedural rules, and the validity of stakeholder objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the government acted within its powers and followed necessary procedures, dismissing claims of arbitrariness and procedural violations.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bharati Dangre, J.
1.Three Petitioners have filed the present Public Interest Litigation being aggrieved by the decision on the part of the State of Goa, in regard to the alleged illegal date of commencement of the academic year 2025-2026 for Grade 6 to 10 and 12, for the Government aided and unaided schools in the State, which was declared by a Notification issued on 28.03.2025, thereby amending the Rule 21 of the Goa Education Rules, 1986.
All the three Petitioners are the parents of the children who are prosecuting their education in the schools, which are to be governed by the new schedule, on publication of the Notification on 28.03.2025, which has now scheduled the commencement of summer vacation from 01.05.2025 for a period of six weeks. The Petition thus seeks quashing and setting aside of the Notification amending the Rule 21 of the Goa Education Rules, 1986 and seek a writ of mandamus to commence the academic year for Grade 6 to 10 and Grade 12 from the 1st week of June, as was the prevailing practice. By way of interim Order, stay is also sought for the effect and implementation of the impugned Notification.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias for the Petitioner along with Ms. Nishad and Mr. Misquita, the learned Advocate General Mr. Pangam for the State along with Additional Government Advocate Mr. Shirodkar and Mr. Faldessai, the Deputy Solicitor General of India, who represent Respondent no. 1.
3. On hearing the respective Counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to issue ‘Rule’. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, waive notice.
4. Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, the Counsel for the Petitioner, has invited our attention to the Goa School Education Rules, formulated in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984. The said Rules in great details govern the running of the schools by the State by classifying them into different categories and also contain the detail outline of the manner in which the education shall be imparted in the schools. It also therefore specifies the school hours, school terms, period of vacation and holidays, etc.
For our purpose, the relevant provision is Rule 21, which we deem appropriate to re-produce, so as to appreciate the challenge to the Notification which has effected a change in the said Rule.
“Rule 21 - "School terms, vacation and Holidays - (1) The total number of working days including examination days for the schools including Higher Secondary schools shall not be less than 220 days in a year to be arranged in two school terms the duration of which shall be as specified by the Director of Education".]
(2) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (1), the following shall be the authorised holidays for the recognised schools namely:
(i) All holidays notified by the ["Government"].
(ii) Discretionary holidays not exceeding 10 days in a year with the previous approval of the Director of Education or an Officer so authorised by him.
(iii) The first term shall ordinarily be from 5th June to 11th October, and a three week's break generally from about 16th October to 6th November, but to be shifted when necessary, to fit in with the Diwali festival;
Provided that the Director of Education may declare a mid-term break of not more than one week for the Ganesh festival but however the loss of actual workings days, on account of this mid-term break shall be made good by cutting the discretionary holidays proportionately.
"(iv) A mid-term break from 24th December to 2nd January."]
'["(v) Summer vacation at the end of the second term for such a period of six weeks as may be specified by the Director of Education."]
8[...]
(3) In addition to the holidays referred to in sub-rule (2) leave may be granted to the student only, preparing for the public examinations of the Affiliating Board for such period as may be specifi
MRF Limited vs. Manohar Parrikar & Ors.
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & anr. vs. C. K. Rajan & Ors.
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri Vs Union of India
The court upheld the validity of the government's Notification amending the academic calendar, affirming adherence to legislative procedures and the necessity of educational reforms under the Nationa....
The court upheld the government's authority to amend educational rules, emphasizing that procedural compliance and stakeholder consultation were adequately addressed, thus validating the Notification....
The judgment establishes that executive actions must comply with statutory mandates, particularly in education, and emphasizes the importance of the neighborhood principle in school admissions.
The wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the policies are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an ....
Government cannot issue orders that violate service rules prohibiting strikes, which undermines public interest principles and regulatory frameworks.
The court established the validity of the Special Rules in relation to the Management Rules, 1969 and determined that the Special Rules had not been rescinded and were still in operation.
The court ruled that amendments to CBSE regulations impacting students must be adequately published to be enforceable, reinforcing the principle of legitimate expectation in administrative law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.