Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Master Siddhant Pankaj Manudhane, a minor represented by his father, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging a circular dated 17.10.2017 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The circular deleted vocational subjects with codes 461 to 467 and transferred subjects 165 and 166 to the optional category, effectively changing the group of subjects and optional subjects for 10th standard students in the middle of the academic year. The petitioner, who suffered from a learning disability, had already opted for certain subjects and was preparing for the 10th standard examination. The court heard arguments from counsels for the petitioner, Union of India, CBSE, and the school. The petitioner sought quashing of the circular to the extent of deletion and transfer of subjects, and a direction to the Board to refrain from changing the curriculum mid-term for 10th std students, as the course is integrated over two years (9th and 10th). The court observed that changing subjects mid-term would cause hardship to students, especially those with disabilities, and that the Board should have given prior notice and implemented changes from the next academic year. The court allowed the petition, quashed the circular insofar as it affected the petitioner, and directed the Board to accept the corrected registration slip dated 17.11.2017 submitted by the school. The judgment was delivered on 20.02.2018 by a division bench comprising Justices S. V. Gangapurwala and A. M. Dhavale.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Curriculum Change - Mid-Term Change - Right to Education Act, 2009 - The petitioner, a student with learning disability, challenged CBSE Circular dated 17.10.2017 which deleted vocational subjects and transferred subjects to optional category mid-term. The court held that changing curriculum in the midst of academic year for 10th std students, who have an integrated course of 9th and 10th, is arbitrary and violates the rights of students, especially those with disabilities. The court directed the Board to accept the corrected registration slip of the petitioner and not to change the subjects for the current academic year. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Administrative Action - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the circular to the extent it affected the petitioner, as the change was sudden and without adequate notice, causing prejudice to students who had already opted for subjects. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the CBSE Board can change the group of subjects and optional subjects in mid-term for 10th standard students, especially those with learning disabilities, and whether such change violates the rights of students under the Right to Education Act and Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the circular dt. 17.10.2017 to the extent it affects the petitioner, and directed the Board to accept the corrected registration slip dt. 17.11.2017 submitted by respondent no. 4.
Law Points
- Right to Education
- Learning Disability
- Mid-Term Curriculum Change
- CBSE Circular
- Article 226
