PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa dismissed a minor boy’s plea challenging circular issued by the Directorate of Education making June 1 of academic year as cut-off date for child, who had attained the age of three years for admission in nursery/pre-school.
The petitioner through his guardian had challenged circulars dated December 13, 2022 and May 24, 2023 issued by the Directorate of Education to the extent such circulars prescribed June 1 of the academic year as the cut-off date by which the child, who had attained the age of three years to be admitted to the first year of nursery/pre-school from the academic year 2023-24. The boy attained the age of three years, 10 days beyond the cut-off date prescribed in these circulars.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Adv D P Lawande said that the cut-off date prescribed by the Directorate of Educationwas arbitrary, irrational and violativeof Articles 14 and 21-A of the Constitution. He submitted that the Directorate of Education had failed to take into account all the relevant considerations before providing this cut-off date.
AdvLawande relied upon notice dated December 21, 2022 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for eligibility to be admitted to the National Defence Academy (NDA) and naval Academy examination 2023. He pointed out that as per the UPSC notice only candidatesborn not earlier than July 2, 2004 and not later than July 1, 2007 are held as eligible. From this, he submitted that the cut-off age was July 1 and feared that the petitioner would have to lose whole year to be eligible to answer the NDA exams.
Advocate General DevidasPangamsubmitted that the decision of fixing a cut-off date was a policy decision based upon inputs from academic experts and after considering that most of the schools in the State commences from June. He said that cut-off date cannot be challenged by mere reference to the UPSC notice concerning the NDA exams, which are conducted twice a year.
The Court stated that there is nothing arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable in fixing the cut-off date in the impugned circulars. The education department’s explanation that the cut-off age has been prescribed to align with the age requirement under RTE Act 2009 or under the NEP 2020 offers sufficient rationale in support of the cut-offage requirement in the impugned circular.
Even by postponing the cut-off date to July 1, there would be several students who would still fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. A cut-off date or an age bar would always exclude some candidates. Therefore while individual hardships can be appreciated, the same cannot be the basis for striking down the impugned cut-off age requirement in the impugned circulars, the Court said.