The bench, also comprising Justice Navin Chawla, said that it did not find merit in the appellant’s submission that the age change was sudden and prejudicial. “If the child is five and it is increased to six, what is sudden about it? You will get the chance next year,” the court observed. The court said that the appellant would be entitled to apply to KV for Class 1 admission next year and this year, it is open to her to seek admission in other schools which are yet to implement NEP. “The submission of appellant was, and even before us is, the implementation is being done in a sudden manner to the prejudice of the appellant. We do not find any merit in this submission. There is nothing sudden about the implementation of the policy since there would always be a fixed date when the policy would be implemented,” the bench said.
“In any event, the implementation of the policy would not cause any prejudice to the appellant as she is not being denied the chance to secure admission in Class 1. The only difference is that she would be entitled to seek admission in Class 1 in a KVS only next year. If the appellant is desirous of admission in Class 1, it is open to her to seek admission in other schools which have not implemented the NEP till date,” it added. The court also noted that the policy itself, which prescribed six years as the minimum age for admission to Class 1 was not under challenge, and the appellant’s stand that other schools have also not implemented the policy cannot be accepted for the reason that “non-compliance of centre’s direction for the implementation of NEP by other schools cannot be a reason to restrain KVS from doing so”.
“We find no reason to interfere with the same (the appeal). Dismissed,” the court said. On April 11, Justice Rekha Palli dismissed a batch of petitions with the minimum age criteria of six years as of March 31, 2022, for admission to Class 1 in Kendriya Vidyalaya for the upcoming academic session. The Centre had defended the decision of the KVS and argued that there was no “vested right” in the petitioners to seek admission in KV and any adverse order from the court would have a pan-India impact. In her petition, the appellant had said that the change in age is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unreasonable, and without the authority of law and that it did not give sufficient time to the parents to make alternate arrangements.