Case Note & Summary
In the Bombay High Court, a minor student through her father filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging Government Resolution No.202105281410593929 dated 28 May 2021 issued by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was studying in IES Orion School, Mumbai, affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (ICSE) up to Class X. The resolution introduced a Common Entrance Test (CET) for admission to Class XI across the State, based on the State Board syllabus, and gave priority to students appearing for CET. The petitioner claimed that the resolution imposed arbitrary and harsh conditions, especially on students from non-State boards whose Class X board examinations were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Four other students from the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) board filed an interim application seeking intervention and impleadment of IGCSE as a respondent. The High Court by order dated 28 July 2021 impleaded IGCSE as respondent no.5 and allowed the intervention. Rule was granted, and the court heard the matter finally. The court framed eight questions of law: maintainability of the writ petition given violation of fundamental rights of many students; power of the court to grant consequential reliefs; whether the State had statutory power to impose additional eligibility conditions contrary to Regulation 79(1) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977; whether consultation with the State Board was required; whether the resolution was repugnant to the State's own Standard Operating Procedure dated 2 August 2021; whether the CET conditions were arbitrary and violative of Article 14; whether compelling unvaccinated students to appear violated Article 21; and whether Section 34(5) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965 was rightly invoked. The factual background shows that due to the second wave of COVID-19, Class X board examinations were cancelled by Government Resolution dated 12 May 2021. On 28 May 2021, the State issued two resolutions: one prescribing evaluation procedure and another granting inclusive promotion to Class XI and prescribing admission procedure including CET. The petitioner argued that entire schooling was online and no physical classes were conducted, making the CET based on State Board syllabus unfair to ICSE and other board students. The State opposed the PIL filed by another person and supported the CET. The court heard detailed arguments, with the Advocate General tendering letters from respondents 3, 4, and 5 clarifying their stands. The judgment was reserved on 6 August 2021 and pronounced on 10 August 2021; the provided extract does not include the final operative directions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Bombay High Court framed the issue whether a writ petition filed by one student challenging Government Resolution that allegedly violated fundamental rights of large number of students was maintainable; the petitioner sought certiorari to quash Notification dated 28 May 2021, and the court considered the matter in the context of extraordinary jurisdiction (Paras 1-4). B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Power to Grant Consequential Reliefs - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court considered whether the court in extraordinary jurisdiction had power to grant consequential reliefs to do complete justice between parties (Para 4). C) Administrative Law - Statutory Power - Additional Eligibility Conditions - Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965, Section 34(5) and Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977, Regulation 79(1) - The court examined whether the State Government had power to issue Government Resolution dated 28 May 2021 imposing additional eligibility conditions contrary to Regulation 79(1) without specific statutory provision (Paras 4,10-11). D) Administrative Law - Consultation Requirement - Consultation with Board - Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965 - The court considered whether the State was required to consult respondent no.2 Board before issuing the impugned Government Resolution (Para 4). E) Administrative Law - Repugnancy - Government Resolution vis-à-vis Standard Operating Procedure - Government Resolution dated 28 May 2021 and SOP dated 2 August 2021 - The court examined whether impugned Government Resolution was contrary and repugnant to Standard Operating Procedure issued by State itself (Para 4). F) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Arbitrariness in CET Conditions - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The court considered whether condition requiring students who appeared for X standard from schools affiliated to respondent nos.2 to 5 Boards or other statutory Boards to appear for CET on SSC syllabus and giving priority only to CET-takers was arbitrary, capricious, harsh and violative of Article 14 (Paras 4,11). G) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Right to Life of Students - Compelling unvaccinated students to appear for CET - Constitution of India, Article 21 - The court examined whether right to life under Article 21 of students already promoted to XI standard but not vaccinated and compelled to appear in CET was violated (Para 4). H) Administrative Law - Statutory Invocation - Invocation of Section 34(5) - Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965, Section 34(5) - The court considered whether respondent no.1 had rightly invoked Section 34(5) of the Act while issuing impugned Government Resolution (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government had statutory power to impose CET and related conditions for Class XI admissions after cancellation of Class X board exams, and whether such conditions violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
Final Decision
Rule; Interim Application (L) No.16326 of 2021 allowed; respondents 1,2,4 waived service; final hearing concluded; judgment reserved on 6 August 2021 and pronounced on 10 August 2021.
Law Points
- Writ petition maintainability for violation of fundamental rights
- power to grant consequential reliefs
- statutory limits on State to impose additional eligibility conditions
- requirement of consultation with Board
- repugnancy to SOP
- arbitrariness under Article 14
- right to life under Article 21
- invocation of Section 34(5) of MSHSB Act
