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 as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the maximum age limit prescribed by the Respondents in paragraph – 4 of their Guidelines for Admission in Kendriya Vidyalayas (2022-2023 & Onwards) for class 8th as 14 years is arbitrary, and contrary to the spirit of the Right to Education Act, and against the Article 21 A of the Constitution of India.)

1. Shreya Bhattacharya is the daughter of a non-commissioned Air Force officer, who seeks a seat in Class VIII in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, the second respondent school, located at the Air Force Campus, Tambaram. Her entry into the Kendriya Vidyalaya is 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. Shreya is now prosecuting her studies in Army Public School, which is about 30 km. from the Air Force Campus. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner now challenges the Guidelines of Kendriya Vidyalaya, principally on the ground that it violates Article 21A of the Constitution and Sec. 3 of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (hereinafter will be referred to as the Right to Education Act) besides going against the policy of automatic admission of the children of service men.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of the first respondent, it is averred:

(a) The first respondent is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is fully financed by the Ministry of Education, GOI, for catering to the needs of children of the central government employees who are in transferable postings. It runs 1250 schools across the country and another three schools abroad.

(b)The Admission guidelines of KV for the academic year 2022-2023 are in line with the Right to Education Act, 2009. These guidelines prescribe an age restriction for admission to every class. It is not arbitrary.

(c) The petitioner's younger brother Shreyank was given admission to Class – I, as he met the age criterion as prescribed in the guidelines for the academic year 2021-2022, but since the petitioner did not satisfy it, she could not be accommodated in Class VI.

(d)The personal inconvenience of the petitioner in travelling 30 km a day to her school cannot be a criterion for challenging the Guidelines.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner 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. He also relied on Article 21 A of the Constitution.

4.1 The learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of the Court the Admission Guidelines in Chapter XI of the Education Code of the Kendriya Vidyalaya. It states that the upper age limit for admission is a minimum age plus two years, and that this upper limit can be relaxed by a further two years if the child is physically challenged, and where a student seeks admission to Class XII, there is no upper age limit except that there should have been no break in studies before that. He added that inasmuch as the petitioner's child is 14 years and two months, he/she cannot be admitted. Fixing the age limit for admitting a child in the Kendriya Vidyalaya is a policy decision, and it may not be interfered with in judicial review. Reliance was placed on the ratio in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27].

4.2 This apart, there is no vacancy in the said school for the present, and the student strength cannot be expanded.

5.1 The Core plank of the petitioner's case is that the Admission Guidelines of KV prescribin