Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Hariom Mukeshbhai Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 6180 of 2023
Decided on : 02-05-2023
Right to Free and Compulsory Education - Admission Age Rule - Rule 3 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 - [Rule 3 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012] - The court discussed the interpretation of Rule 3(1) of the Rules and emphasized the completion of years over the exact date of birth, applying the principle of interpretation to make the provision of law or rule purposive. The court concluded that the child must be held to be completing five years of age as on 1st June of that year, and the principle laid down in Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala v. Director of Primary Education Gujarat State & Others applies to the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's son was denied admission to 1st standard due to being short by one day according to the admission age rule. The petitioner did not press the challenge to the rule but sought application of a previous judgment that emphasized completion of years over the exact date of birth.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's son should be considered as completing five years of age as on 1st June of the academic year, and the denial of admission based on the one-day difference was not justified.
Issues: The main issue was the application of Rule 3(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012, and the interpretation of the admission age requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the completion of years over the exact date of birth, applying the principle of interpretation to make the provision of law or rule purposive.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the denial of admission and directed the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner's son, considering the completion of five years of age as on 1st June of the academic year.
JUDGMENT :
With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr J. K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. Though served, respondent no.4, has chosen not to enter appearance.
3. Mr Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate appearing with Mr Hitesh L. Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that initially, the petitioner, was aggrieved by the introduction of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2012”) which, provides that no Elementary School shall admit a child in 1st standard who has not completed 6th year of age on the 1st June of the academic year. It is submitted that the date of birth of the son of the petitioner is 01.06.2017 and therefore, he would be short by one day for seeking admission in the 1st standard. It is submitted that the Rules of 2012, has been amended in the year 2020; however, the relaxation was provided to the academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. It has been provided that the child shall be eligible for admission who has completed 5th year of age on the 1st June of the respective academic year. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the son of the petitioner has been denied admission on the ground that he is short by one day and will have to repeat one whole year in the Senior K.G.
3.1 It is urged that since the petitioner is short by one day, the petitioner, has not pressed the challenge to the Rules as the grievance of the petitioner, has now been taken care of by the judgment of this Court in the case of Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala v. Director of Primary Education Gujarat State & Others reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 6853. It is submitted that appeal against that judgment has also been dismissed. Hence, the principle laid down in said judgment applies to the facts of the present case.
4. Mr J. K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, could not dispute the principle laid down by this Court in the above referred judgment, and its applicability to the facts of the present case. It is therefore urged that let appropriate orders be passed in the matter.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
6. The petitioner, has not pressed the challenge to the legality and validity of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2012 and therefore, acceding to the request of the petitioner, this Court, has passed an order dated 01.05.2023 which, reads thus:
“Mr Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate with Mr Hitesh L. Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner, does not press the prayer challenging of the newly inserted sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010. It is urged that the child of the petitioner is short by one day and therefore, would be covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala vs. Director of Primary Education reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 6853.
At the joint request, let the matter appear on 02.05.2023.”
7. The petitioner has not pressed the prayer and the limited relief which the petitioner has claimed, would be application of the judgment of this Court in the case of Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala v. Director of Primary Education Gujarat State & Others (supra). The issue before this Court, was regarding sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 in Chapter II under the caption “Right to Free and Compulsory Education” of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 which provided that no Elementary School shall admit a child who has not completed 6th year of age on the date of admission. It further provided that if a child is desirous to be admitted on completion of 5 years of age, he shall be admitted, provided he has completed 5 years of age as on 1st June of that year. Relevant pa
AI
The main legal point established is the emphasis on the completion of years over the exact date of birth in interpreting admission age requirements, and the application of the principle of interpreta....
In computing age of any person, day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day, and he shall be deemed to have attained majority, if he falls within the first paragraph of Section 3, at be....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cut-off date for completion of 6 years of age for admission in 1st standard has a rationale to provide education to children at an appropr....
The court upheld the authority of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to implement the National Education Policy, 2020, and set the minimum age for admission to Class-I at 6 years, emphasizing the need for ....
The duty of the State to provide free and compulsory education to children and the corresponding right created by the Constitution, as well as the need to remedy injustice and strike down injustice a....
Uniform admission guidelines for educational institutions must be strictly adhered to; age eligibility cannot be relaxed arbitrarily as it leads to discrimination against other students.
As per the newly inserted Rule 17 of the KER, any pecuniary loss caused to the Government on account of the creation on holding of such posts is to be recovered from the teacher in charge of the clas....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
