TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suance to its report, this Court would, normally, be hesitant to interfere with the same. But this Court is of the view that the State cannot take its citizens, especially the children by surprise. Both the parents as well as the children are entitled to fundamental right to education and to plan their future. As there were no upper age limit prior to 18th December, 2015, the parents of the children who are attaining the age of four prior to 31st March, 2016 could have well decided in the Academic Session 2015-16 they would get their children admitted in this Academic Year 2016-17 in the nursery class. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the impugned order issued on 18th December, 2015 virtually has a retrospective effect inasmu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Iyer, Advocate, Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) CM APPL. 4439/2016 in W.P.(C) 1015/2016, CM APPL. 4441/2016 in W.P.(C) 1016/2016, CM APPL. 4443/2016 in W.P.(C) 1017/2016, CM APPL. 4445/2016 in W.P.(C) 1018/2016, CM APPL. 4472/2016 in W.P.(C) 1023/2016, CM APPL. 4477/2016 in W.P.(C) 1024/2016, CM APPL. 4480/2016 in W.P.(C) 1025/2016, CM APPL. 4512/2016 in W.P.(C) 1035/2016, CM APPL. 4514/2016 in W.P.(C) 1036/2016 W.P.(C) 962/2016 Ors. Page 7 of 12 1. Present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the order dated 18th December, 2015 passed by the Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 16(1) of Delhi School Education Act Rules, 1973 [for short DSEAR, 1973 ] whereby the uppe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat upon a strict reading of Sections 2(c), 2(f), 3 and 12(1)(c) of RTE Act, 2009, it is apparent that the entry level for class one is upon attainment of six years. They contend that since the impugned executive order fixes the upper age limit for class one as less than six years as on 31st March of the year in which the admission is sought, the same is inconsistent with the Parliamentary Statute, i.e., RTE Act, 2009. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that the upper age limit can only be fixed by way of a law and not by way of an office order which has neither any legislative sanction nor approval by Administrator, i.e., Lieutenant Governor. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that the impugned order is also in violati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood when the child is developing fast, difference of few months/year in age of a child can have a big effect not only on his/her psychological appearance, but in behaviour and attitude as a whole. The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that children with minimum possible difference of age should be allowed in the same class in a school. 11. Learned senior counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi states that the intent behind the impugned order dated 18th December, 2015 is to give effect to the aforesaid Sub-Committee report. He also submits that the main aim of RTE Act, 2009 is that every child of the age of six to fourteen years should have a right to free and compulsory education and he/she should be admitted into a Class appropriate to his/her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursuance to its report, this Court would, normally, be hesitant to interfere with the same. 17. But this Court is of the view that the State cannot take its citizens, especially the children by surprise. Both the parents as well as the children are entitled to fundamental right to education and to plan their future. As there were no upper age limit prior to 18th December, 2015, the parents of the children who are attaining the age of four prior to 31st March, 2016 could have well decided in the Academic Session 2015-16 they would get their children admitted in this Academic Year 2016-17 in the nursery class. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the impugned order issued on 18th December, 2015 virtually has a retrospective effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f candidates is 15th February, 2016 and this Court desires that all the parties adhere to the schedule fixed. Accordingly, present applications stand disposed of. Order dasti. CM APPL. 4440/2016 in W.P.(C) 1015/2016 , CM APPL. 4442/2016 in W.P.(C) 1016/2016, CM APPL. 4444/2016 in W.P.(C) 1017/2016, CM APPL. 4446/2016 in W.P.(C) 1018/2016, CM APPL. 4474/2016 in W.P.(C) 1023/2016, CM APPL. 4478/2016 in W.P.(C) 1024/2016, CM W.P.(C) 962/2016 Ors. Page 12 of 12 APPL. 4481/2016 in W.P.(C) 1025/2016, CM APPL. 4513/2016 in W.P.(C) 1035/2016, CM APPL. 4515/2016 in W.P.(C) 1036/2016 Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 962/2016, W.P.(C) 1014/2016, W.P.(C) 1015/2016 , W.P.(C) 1016/2016 , W.P.(C) 1017/2016, W.P.(C) 1018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
