By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

IN AN order passed in the case - Krish Rajendra Chordiya (17) v. The State of Maharashtra and 4 others, on June 7, 2023, Justice G S Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court at Mumbai, have unambiguously declared that they find no rationale why Standard X students, who do not opt for science earlier, should not be permitted to opt for science stream later. Elaborating its view-point, the court has opined that in fact, the choice of subjects at the SCC/ICSE schools is not made in the 10th Standard, but at least a year or two earlier, around the 8th or 9th Standard. It is surely unreasonable to expect that the decision of a 14-year-old will be determinative of his entire future. The High Court has stated that it is fortified in this view by a look at the National Education Policy. The entire pattern is proposed to be changed. The old trifecta of Science-Arts-Commerce is to be done away with, and rightly so. Now the emphasis is on identifying and nurturing potential and providing flexible learning options. If this is the policy trend, we are unable to see how the inflexibility- to say nothing of the tardiness-of the respondent-Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune’s approach fulfills any objective at all.

 

The Court was compelled to ask what the purpose of the said Board is: to assist students and provide and encourage education opportunities or to discover new ways to stymie them? Further, assuming that the regulations are to be read like a statute, which is the submission that was made before the High Court on behalf of the respondent-Board, then all principles of interpretation of statutes and all aids to interpretation including the principles of ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis will undoubtedly need to be considered. Prima facie, however, the HC has been unable to see that there is the possibility of a complete and blanket exclusion of the petitioner-student not only having regard to the facts of the case but also wording of the regulations. At this prima facie stage, one must test the balance of convenience in addition to assessing whether a prima facie case has been made out. An important factor here is that the approach of the respondent – Gargi Junior College, Nashik is one that supports the interpretation being canvassed by the Senior Counsel, Y S Jahagirdar during his appearance for the petitioner, namely, that the petitioner was indeed qualified to take admission to the science stream.

 

The High Court has stated that if that is the case, the greater prejudice is undoubtedly to the petitioner, likely to be caused, if interim and ad-interim relief is refused. At the same time, the High Court sees no conceivable prejudice being caused to the respondent –Board. On the contrary, another question that will have to be addressed is whether the actions of the Board have to be tested on the basis of the well-settled principles of Wednesbury unreasonableness and the doctrine of proportionality. There is also the question of whether it is at all ‘reasonable’ for the Board to undertake any form of scrutiny after a student has completed two years of the 11th and 12th Standard, rather than as soon as practicable after admission to the 11th Standard. The HC has pointed out that one of the arguments being canvassed on behalf of the respondent-Board is that the petitioner cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectations against the respondent-Board. This is the question, the HC has said that it would also consider along with its associated question of the doctrine of legitimate expectations but , to put it at its mildest, if there is to run an issue of estoppels or estoppels in pais, then it is not unreasonable to say that it must be applied against the respondent-Board. The HC has said that it will consider all these issues at appropriate stage.

 

It was submitted by way of an argument to the Court that the applicable regulations, which were known to the respondent-College, do not permit the petitioner to gain admission to the Standard 11th and 12th Science at all. The High Court has stated that it does not see, as to how it can possibly refuse to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner in a case like this. If the regulations were known to the respondent-Board and the College, it was for the two of them to coordinate to ensure that the petitioner was informed-before being given admission that he was ineligible whatever the reason. It is certainly not open to the respondent-College, which must be deemed to know of, all applicable regulations to say that it is not at fault. If the Board cannot control the conduct of its accredited educational institutions, then the students cannot be made to suffer consequences of that fault.

 

A weighty factor here is the performance of the petitioner and the duration for which he has been allowed to study Science. This is not a case where the petitioner just entered the 11th Standard Science stream and wants to pursue it. He has in fact completed the 11th and 12th Standard. He has done well above average in both. Not just that, he has appeared for highly competitive entrance examinations to among the most prestigious engineering and technical colleges in the country and at least in one has secured provisional admission. What he is now being told that is that he is incapable of studying Science because he did not do Science three years ago in the 10th Standard. Even that assertion is not established. The HC has pointed out that the petitioner’s ICSE certificate is part of every record. According to the court, it finds no reason as to why the said certificate itself could not have been examined or checked within a few days before confirming admission or, at best, a few days or few weeks after, before the petitioner was put to this kind of prejudice. It is for these reasons that the High Court has admitted the petition and pending the final hearing and disposal of the petition, by way of interim relief, directed the respondents-Board and College to issue mark-sheet and certificate (Admission card) to the petitioner for 12th Standard Examination of 2023.