Full Text
LPA 395/2016
PEARL SHARMA Appellant
Through : Mr. Kamal Jindal, Advocate
ThroughBliardwaj,.pGSC for UOI.
/M ^ Ml- Jo^fiiMyithsMr. Chirag /se' .fffo^Ci^^tesfbr:^? \
'-tM
HON'BLE MSi JUSTICE SANGltilDHINGRA SEHGALW !/
't'' ,.ii .ji,.'''i MV'i '--'- MS. G. ROHINI. CHIEF JUSTlcfeid^iL) fi u iiji '--r'fi ''s'> Hiy ?'-!.•• j/
CM No. 24254/2016 ii'i '-T>a 'ij l'f< ?' -!/ !
JUDGMENT
1. In the facts and circumstances explained in the application, the delay in filmg the appeal is condoned.'-'5-~^M_^„:^^^^
2. Application stands disposed of. LPA No.395/2016
1. The present appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 3485/2015. The unsuccessful Petitioner is the Appellant before us.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. LPA No.395/2016 Page lof? 2016:DHC:8433-DB
3. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner who applied to appear as a private student in Delhi Secondary School Examination, 2015 conducted by GBSE, Delhi, filed W.P.(C) No.3485/2015 aggrieved by the action of the Respondent / CBSE in not allowing her to opt for Home Science and Commerce subjects instead of Mathematics and Science in the 10^standard Board Examination. The prayer in the writ petition included a direction to the Respondent / CBSE to change the 'Scheme of examination of CBSE' itself and to include the options of 'Home Science' and 'Element of Business' for regular and private students of lO''^ class so as to enable them to have wider choice of subjects..i".... ''-ii
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that in academic matters, unless there is grave violation of statutory provisions, the court should not interfere. The learned Single Judge had also rejected the G n im s ix. °... contention of the writ petitioner that the impugned scheme is discriminatory since option has been given to Patrachar Vidyalaya candidates to take the.o---.. 51] T> jv ^'=53. n examination in Home Science and Commerce instead of Mathematics and Science holding that the sehemes of examination of CBSE and Patrachar Vidyalaya are separate and Patrachar sti^^ts and private students like the writ petitioner are not similarly situated.
5. The order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed before us reiterating the very same contentions that the impugned action of the Respondent/CBSE is discriminatory and arbitrary.
6. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Patrachar Vidyalaya has been affiliated to CBSE and is thus bound by the laws of CBSE and as per the secondary curriculum 2014-15 of CBSE, "Home Science" and "Commerce" eould be taken by the candidates in place LPA No.395/2016 Page 2 of[7] of "Maths" and "Science". It is also contended that it is totally arbitrary and discriminatory that while Patrachar Vidyalaya candidates had an option of taking examination in "Home Science" and "Commerce" in place of "Maths" and "Science" the same was denied to the private students.
7. Per Contra, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.l/CBSE contended that the order under appeal is in conformity with the settled principles of law and interference in an intracourt appeal is not warranted. It is also contended by him that all CBSE candidates are bound by^;the Schemerj^of^^^^i^ prescribed by CBSE according to which class 150 ^students have to' conipulsorily appear in five subjects i.e two lan^ages, Mathematies||Sc|ence aifd Social Science. It is sought to be explained by the leamed'cd^^se! that Patradh'arWidyalaya was {{ \\ established and run by Directorv-df,^Education, Government of Delhi If iif P specifically forilthe dropouts and|pel)j|iei. Belonging to weaker sections of tj society and the scheme ofstudiesMdl-dow^w them provides'lk student with V't ^/.V'fr' // the option of any two'^fMbie'etsl-^oufe ofi^Sei^^^ Science and % /i'"'"x'-?'• '-i-aiiSaiaaftl!—// % // Mathematics.
8. It is relevant to note;^IdyalayaAvas established in 1968 with the sole purpose of openingliew yistas of education for the dropouts and those belonging to weaker sections of society who could not continue their educational facilities on regular basis. The Vidyalaya which runs under the Government and is fiscally controlled by the Directorate of Education of Delhi conducts examination for Secondary and Senior Secondary School Certificate examinations ofthe CBSE (X, XI, XII classes), Delhi. As per the Scheme of Studies for Secondary School Examination, Patrachar Vidyalaya offers two languages as laid down in the Scheme of Examination and allows LPA No.395/2016 Page 3 of[7] M to opt for Home Science and Commerce in place of Mathematics and Science.
9. So far as the Scheme of Studies offered by CBSE to its students is concerned, the same is as under: "2.[1] SUBJECT OF STUDIES The learning areas will include:
(I) and (2) Two Lqngmges.;T>Mt of: Hindi, English,
Assamese, Bahgla,^^ Grujqratf/ Kannada, Kashmiri, Marathi, Mdicq^dlqm^JMdnipun,J^ "Bunjabi, Sindhi, Tamil, Teluguf Urdu, Lepeha, Limbod,JB)juiiva, Sanskrit, Arabic; ^B^ersian, Rmsiah^ Spanish, Nepali, BIpetan, iMifqj^dpgjS^ \ // ^ (3)1Mathematics li (4),,Science n> 111)11 1' (5fSocialSciences I ' l '• 7 r,j... // (8) HeqlthfdndBhysi^^^ f 'Os V', yy,• -^r^v /V 2.[2] ADDlfldNA^S;UBjE^TS^Sttid^^^ offer any one ofthefollowihffaf^gn aaditiondTsubject: Language other than the two compulsdrp languages (offered as subjects of study) OR Commerce, Bainting, Music, Home Science, Foundation of Information Technology/ Information and Communication Technology".
10. In Amita Vs Union ofIndia & Anr., (2005) 13 SCC 721, the Supreme Court held: "11. Article 14 ofthe Constitution ofIndia guarantees to every citizen ofIndia the right to equality before the law or the equalprotection oflaw. The first expression LPA No.395/2016 Page 4 of[7] "equality before the law" which is takenfrom the English common law, is a declaration of equality of all persons within the territory ofIndia, implying thereby the absence of any special privilege in favour of any individual. It also means that amongst the equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that likes should be treated alike. Thus, what forbids is discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. It does not forbid different treatment of unequal. Article 14 of the Constitution ofIndia is both negative andpositive right. Negative in the s^se that-riQ~pne canbediscriminated against an;ybd^, andj' evfiyone shouldbe treated asequals.,,yFhe^ldffefd'sHhe^core: and essence ofright to equality/and,state has obligation to tdkennecessary steps SO t^at every indifidiial^mfgiven equal respect and concerri/wfiich he1d^0U^ai/q0uman bking. Therefore, ArtJi4Tpntemplates/filf^qs0^Blp^ess in the/state, action, the/ absence of wn^f^ul^ entail the violation of Art14 ofthe Constitutiqn/'fi| -• i (M i; >7. ti ) vj "-4
11. In Thote Bhaskara Rao Vs. A.P. Public Service Commission and sn '••T'cl "O j[7] Ors. ATR 1988 SC830, itwas held bySu]^eme^ourt;i^ "7....Tlie/,ditqck' is oitfts ground of illegal discMminddbnr^^ffdo^pdt/fnd^ merit in this submission. VThatfisfforhidaen/^ Constitution is discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. An equal treatment does not arise as between persons governed arise as between persons governed by different conditions and different sets ofcircumstances. It is obviouslypermissible to classifypersons into groups and such groups may be differently treated if there is a reasonable basisfor such difference or distinction. Having regard to the difference in the nature ofservice under the Governmentand that of the other services, therefore, a classification based on that line cannot be struck down on the ground of LPA No.395/2016 Page[5] of? / illegal discrimination. The Proviso in question must be held to be valid and effective. "
12. Thus, it is clear that the equality clause is attracted amongst the persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the National Curriculum Framework is the framework on the basis of which the CBSE formulates its own curriculum which provides for making syllabi and draws policy for education. It has emphasised Maths, Science and Social Science as basic subjects to be studied at secoricfai^ leyeFjmd the only ex provided by •I'y' ci U -i 1- CBSE from the Scheme dfeStudies Js^in respect",of^candidates who are spastic, blind, physically: handicapped^SCdming to Batrachar Vidyalaya, it ji' j'Aa '% v. caters to needs of 'dfbpouts afrd^persOris^belbnging to'^vfeaker sections of;! AA'-'AAAA i\ society and a student can opt for ah^vrt^^subjects out of ScienCie, Commerce, ii 1! Home Science!& Mathematics. fPatidchar Vidyalaya students follow the ',i il scheme of studies prepared by tne^HireefoKm^^^ of Education, government of Vi A j! NCT of Delhi. % -v
13. Thus, it is c^e^^^l^at the,-schenie^^^^^ of CBSE and Patrachar Vidyalaya are-vsepaf|ite'-MB "^j^ientifely different. The writ petitioner/Appellant therefore cannot"allege discrimination of any sort placing reliance upon thescheme ofexamination ofPatrachar Vidyalaya.
14. The further contention that the scheme of studies of CBSE itself is arbitrary is equally untenable. AVhile rejecting the said contention, the learned Single Judge observed: '13. Moreover, as the CBSEfollows the Scheme ofStudies all over India prepared by an Expert Body like the National Curriculum Forum, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. The Supreme Court in All India Councilfor LPA No.395/2016 6o/ 7 ~7 Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, (2009) 11 see 726 has held that the Courts are neither equipped nor have academic or technical backgrounds to take decisions in academic matters and ifthe Courtsstart doing the same, it will lead to chaos in education. It has further been held that the Courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute their own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to thoseformulated by the persons authorized to do so and that the Courts cannot interfere withpolicy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better,fairer ox-;wiserzalternative is available. After all legality ofthepolicy,'gndmotjli^^ orsoundness ofthepolij^pisflipfsubject ^fjudicial refierw. Similarly, in Universiiy Grants eommission Vs. 4^h(fAnil Bobde, (2013)/10 fSCe 51%ut/ihdsi been, held that in,academic matterstx)unless tHergfMs^!S^ledrfviolatidhX:;of^/statutory
0. j n S provisions, regulations/</or/tmotmcation issued,/ Courts quid notinterfere. {) should not interfere. i iiiliiijl! y,
15. We entirely agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge which is in accordance with the settled principles of law.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the order _under appeal warrants no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. q vfi^ ' "T? /?»• CfflEF JUSTICE JULY 13, 2016 gr// LPA No.395/2016 SANC // SEHGAL