RTE admission: Karnataka HC backs govt move on age criteria
During the academic year 2014-15 the age criterion for class 1 under RTE was set between 5 years and 5 months and 6 years and 5 months.
BENGALURU: Recently several parents seeking admission of their wards to class 1 under the Right to Education (RTE) quota were in for a shock when the Department of Public Instruction rejected online applications of children who were studying in UKG, citing that they will not be turning five years and 10 months on June 1, 2016.
The confusion was due to the new guidelines which mandates that a child must be aged between five years and 10 months and six years and 10 months, to seek admission to class 1 under RTE. During the academic year 2014-15 the age criterion for class 1 under RTE was set between 5 years and 5 months and 6 years and 5 months.
As the confusion prevailed, the RTE Task Force Bengaluru, represented by its state convener Narasimha G. Rao had approached high court filing PIL seeking directions to the Commissioner, Education Department, to consider its representation.
The petitioner organisation had requested through its representation that the government should re-look into the sudden change in the age group. They pleaded that relaxation should be granted beyond the cut-off date, otherwise the students born beyond the said date would not get admission.
The petitioner organisation had argued citing that there are many UKG students, who are less than 5 years and 10 months old and it was unfair to deprive them of quota benefit.
However after the hearing, the high court division bench, headed by Chief Justice S.K. Mukherjee, was of the view that the decision taken by the government to fix the cut-off date cannot be said to be faulty, as the children of the same age group would study in the same class.
“However, if the cut-off date is extended, it would result in a situation where older children would have to study with younger children in the same class. Even otherwise, it is a policy decision of the government, which is in the larger interest of the public. We find no good ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed,” the court ordered on April 4.