Internal school management decisions regarding timings are non-justiciable unless arbitrary or mala fide.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners question the change of school timings of the 4^th respondent from 9.30 a.m. to 9.00 a.m.

2. Petitioners are minor students studying in the 4^th respondent school. They have been pursuing their studies at the said school from Kindergarten onwards. The timings of the 4^th respondent school all along and at the commencement of the academic year 2025-26 was from 9.30 a.m. to 4..00 p.m. as far as Standards II to VIII were concerned. However, by a unilateral decision, conveyed through WhatsApp messages, it was informed by the school authorities that the timings of the school will undergo a change to 9.00 a.m.to 4.00 p.m. with effect from 09.09.2025. Questioning the unilateral change in the timing of the school, this writ petition has been filed.

3. A counter statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 stating that no reliefs are sought against them and further that, the decision to advance the school timing was taken by the Principal to accommodate few subjects and co- curricular activities introduced for the academic year 2025-26 with specific emphasis on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Communicative English and Arts/Sports, without compromising on the core academic curriculum. It was also stated that a prior and advance notice of two months was provided to all, before implementing the changed school timings from 08.09.2025. Respondents 5 and 6 further stated that, out of an approximately 1750 students, parents of 1700 students have welcomed the change and to those persons who expressed difficulty in attending the school at 9.00 a.m., the school authorities have even permitted such students to report to school by 9.20 a.m. so as to ensure that they do not miss out on the school academic classes. The statement further mentions that the internal administration and day-to-day management of the school cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition and therefore this writ petition ought to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 as well as the learned Government Pleader.

5. At the outset itself, it needs to be mentioned that since the 4^th respondent is a CBSE school, respondents 1 to 3 have no role in the internal arrangement or working of the said school. Even, as far as respondents 5 and 6 are concerned, the issue of timing being not the subject matter of supervision by respondents 5 and 6, they also have no role.

6. Be that as it may, the change in timings of a school is a matter that falls purely with the realm of internal administration. It is not a matter of public duty nor of any public interest. When a school management fix the timings of the school, various factors would have been taken into reckoning. Unless and until the change is so arbitrary or malafide no third party should interfere in such internal arrangements. What is ideal for each school is a matter to be decided by the school authorities itself, unless there are specific guidelines issued by the supervising body like respondents 4 and 5 or respondents 1 to 3 as the case may be. In the absence of any such mandatory guidelines, the internal arrangement of the school is not justiciable and this Court cannot issue any writ directing any private school to abide by the choice of timings of a faction of students.

7. Apart from the above, if at all the petitioners are unhappy about the timings of the school, they are always at liberty to choose a school of their choice. As long as there is no such restriction on selecting a school of their choice and as long as they continue to study in the 4^th respondent school, they must necessarily abide by the rules and regulations in the said school.

With the above observations, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.

Sd/-