03 April 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recent judicial proceeding in the matter of Master Arnav Sharma vs St Georges School Alaknanda, the Delhi High Court addressed a contentious issue regarding the promotion of a student under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The case, W.P.(C) 4804/2024, involved a student who had petitioned against his school’s decision not to promote him to Class VI after allegedly failing a re-test.

The petitioner, a student of Respondent 1 school since 2017, had appeared for his Class V examinations in February 2024. However, the school did not declare the results of these examinations and instead conducted a re-test between 6th March and 18th March 2024. Subsequently, the school declared the petitioner as having failed the re-test, leading to his non-promotion to the next grade.

Central to the petitioner’s argument was the alleged violation of Section 16 of the RTE Act, which governs examinations and conditions for promotion in classes V and VIII. Specifically, the petitioner contested the validity of two office orders issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE) on 7th October 2022 and 22nd August 2023. These orders, according to the petitioner, imposed excessively stringent passing criteria, thereby infringing upon his right to education under the RTE Act.

During the proceedings, the court meticulously examined the provisions of Section 16 of the RTE Act. It noted that the Act mandates a regular examination at the end of classes V and VIII, followed by a provision for re-examination within two months for students who fail the initial examination. The court further highlighted that Section 16(3) empowers the appropriate government to allow schools to retain students in classes V and VIII under prescribed conditions.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the re-test conducted within 15 days of the initial examination did not provide adequate preparation time, potentially compromising the fairness of the assessment process. However, the court held that Section 16(2) only stipulates a two-month window for re-examination following the declaration of initial results, thereby affirming the legality of the school’s actions in this regard.

Regarding the office orders issued by the DoE, the court found them to be within the scope of the powers vested by the RTE Act. The passing criteria set forth in these orders, requiring a minimum of 33% marks in each subject, were deemed reasonable and not unduly stringent by the court.

Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner’s prayer seeking to quash the DoE’s orders, affirming their conformity with Section 16 of the RTE Act. However, acknowledging the petitioner’s contention that the results of the initial examination were never declared before the re-test, the court granted interim relief. Pending further orders, the petitioner was permitted to attend classes in Class VI, thus ensuring continuity in his education.

The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in educational assessments under the RTE Act while reaffirming the statutory provisions governing examinations and promotions in elementary education. As the matter progresses, it remains pivotal to balance the rights of students with the regulatory framework aimed at ensuring quality education and equitable opportunities for all underprivileged children.

  Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009