Independent Schools'' Federation of India (Regd.) vs Central Board of Secondary Education and Another

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner, claiming to be an All-India association of schools affiliated inter alia to the Respondent No. 1 Board and working for the interest of the said schools and to assist them in their quest for excellence in education, has filed this writ petition impugning the Circular No. 39 dated 20th September, 2009, Circular No. 40 dated 29th September, 2009 of the Respondent No. 1 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and seeking quashing thereof. It is the plea of the Petitioner, that the said Circulars introducing Grading System for classes I Xth and Xth and abolishing the examination in class Xth, though claiming to be "examination reforms", are not reformative as intended in the National Curriculum Framework 2005; place multifold burden on the students, increase the workload of the teachers; have been issued in haste; will produce a domineering attitude amongst teachers and which would be detrimental to the interest of the students; are at mismatch with the other examination Boards etc. It is not as if the Petitioners have not had a hearing in the matter. Even though the Circulars aforesaid impugned in this petition record that the Respondent CBSE had been discussing the matter with the stakeholders all over the country, in pursuance to the orders in WP(C)2226/2010 and WPC(C)3433/2010 earlier preferred by the Petitioner and permitting the Petitioner to make representation to the CBSE and directing the CBSE to grant a hearing to the Petitioner, such representation was made and hearing granted. The said representation was disposed of by the CBSE vide order dated 12th August, 2010 also impugned in this writ petition. The said order also records that the Circulars were preceded by wide consultations with various stakeholders including principals, teachers, parents, students and academicians and addresses the lacunas, inefficiencies, faults averred by the Petitioner.

It was, at the outset, inquired from the counsel for the Petitioner as to how this Court in exercise of judicial review can sit over the decision of the expert body and which decision is recorded to have been taken after consultation with all the stakeholders.

The counsel for the Petitioner could only contend that the said Circulars are not in accordance with National Curriculum Framework. It is further contended that the suggestions given by the Petitioner during the hearing granted have not been considered. Various other problems/difficulties are cited including of limited resources in the schools to give effect to the scheme.

The counsel for the Respondent CBSE appearing on advance notice has in this regard also referred to The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, P.M. Bhargava and Others Vs. University Grants Commission and Another, and Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, laying down that the Courts would be slow to interfere with the opinion of the experts particularly the academic Bodies and that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to as to what course should be taught in Universities and what should be their curriculum and in the matter of policy decisions, the scope of judicial review is limited.

Reference may also be made to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in State of H.P. and Others Vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh, also holding that it is the pervasive power and authority vested in the Government to frame policy and guidelines for progressive and legitimate growth of the society and the Courts do not substitute its views in the decision of the Government with regard to the policy matters and must refuse to sit as appellate authority or super legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation or policy decision of the Government unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution. Another recent dicta in All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and Others, also held that the Courts cannot interfere with policy, either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. The Court had earlier in English Medium Students Parents Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others, on similar grounds refused to interfere with the order making study of Kannada language compulsory in primary schools for linguistic minority children and schools.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the petition. The Petitioner is seeking intervention of this Court over matters which are prohibited as aforesaid.

There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.