IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Arun Joseph, S/o. Joseph – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship (MSDE), Directorate General Of Training (DGT) and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 3767 Of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2024
Curriculum - Student's Plea for Redesigned Curriculum
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of Government I.T.I., sought to redesign the curriculum to have only five working days, with Saturdays and Sundays as holidays. The petitioner's request was rejected by the Government, leading to the filing of this writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's request to modify the curriculum was not maintainable as it is within the realm of the experts to decide the manner of the curriculum and the time frame required to cover the syllabus. The court also noted that the representation made by the petitioner was not statutory and therefore not obligated on the part of the Government to consider or pass orders on it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's plea for a redesigned curriculum, allowing for Saturdays to be holidays, was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is not within a student's purview to dictate the manner of the curriculum, and that the decision lies with the experts. Additionally, the court noted that the representation made by the petitioner was not statutory and therefore not binding on the Government.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition without any further orders.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is stated to be a student of the Government I.T.I., Chalakkudy; and his singular plea is that the curriculum of the course be ordered to be re-designed by the respondents, thus rendering only five days of the week to be working, with Saturdays and Sundays being holidays.
2. Sri.Sherry J.Thomas – learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the afore plea of his client, pointed out that the syllabus of the I.T.I. has been now revisited under the National Skill Qualification Frame Work Scheme, and that the hours of training have been reduced to 1200 hours from the earlier 1600 hours. He submitted that, therefore, his client preferred Ext.P1 representation before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala, specifying the manner in which the working hours can be modulated, thus allowing two days of week to be holidays; but that this has been rejected by the Government through Ext.P2 order, merely saying that if his request is to be allowed, then the number of casual leave for the employees will have to be reduced to 15 from 20 presently entitled. He says that, the reasons in Ext.P2 are not good enough to reject Ext.P1, because, what he projected was a method, whereby, students would be in a position to engage in other “permissible courses along with the I.T.I. for better job perspective” (sic). He thus prayed that Ext.P2 be set aside and the Government be directed to reconsider Ext.P1 in terms of law.
3. Smt.Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that the intention of the petitioner appears to be very confutative, because, even though, in the 1st paragraph of the memorandum of this writ petition, he says that “he is an industrious student intending to do additional permissible courses along with the I.T.I. for better job perspective” (sic), in Ext.P1, what he has stated is that the financially backward students can use Saturdays and Sundays to work and “obtain resources for physical and mental pleasure” (sic). She submitted that, in any event, a student cannot dictate the manner of the course or the methodology of the curriculum; and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. She concluded saying that, nevertheless, the Government had considered Ext.P1 on its merits, but has rejected the petitioner's request because of the reasons that are stated therein. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the afore submissions with specific attention to the request of the petitioner, as available in the writ petition.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner, in this writ petition, cites the sole reason for seeking Saturdays to be holidays, as being an opportunity for him “to do additional permissible courses along with I.T.I. for better job perspective” (sic). However, in Ext.P1, he explains that students of the financially backward strata can use Saturdays and Sundays to work, so as to obtain additional financial resources. Obviously, these two cannot run together; and in any event, as rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader, it cannot be left to a student to decide the manner of the curriculum, or the time frame that are required to cover the syllabus, it being within the realm of the experts, who alone can make an evaluation of all the relevant and germane inputs and aspects.
6. That apart, the petitioner preferred Ext.P1 before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala, which representation was not a statutory one, and obviously, therefore, not obligated on the part of the Government to have considered or passed orders on it. However, they chose to do so through Ext.P2, specifying the reasons which weighed with the experts, in not acceding to the request made by the petitioner.
7. Being in the policy realm, into which the jurisdiction of this Court is largely barricaded in view of various judgments of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am certain that the request of the petitioner in this
The decision on the curriculum and time frame for covering the syllabus lies within the realm of the experts, and not within a student's purview.
The court established that changes to established educational practices, such as declaring Saturdays as working days, require proper authority, stakeholder consultation, and adherence to the provisio....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to adhere to AICTE regulations for the approval of educational programs, and the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art....
The appointment of a teacher to an unsanctioned post is void; creation of posts follows governmental policy decisions based on financial constraints and student enrollment as mandated by statutory re....
Temporary employees under the Kalelkar Award are entitled to the same holiday benefits and overtime pay as permanent employees, regardless of government circulars to the contrary.
Judicial review does not extend to economic policy unless it violates law or principles of fairness. Compliance with statutory provisions is essential in administrative actions.
The court emphasized that discretionary remedies under Article 226 are for doing justice and correcting injustice and not the other way round. The court also highlighted the principle that courts sho....
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.