SONI VARSHABEN RASIKLAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION GANDHINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Special Civil Application the petitioner wants to declare certain provisions of the Gujarat Educational Institutions (Primary and Pre-Primary Training College) Rules 1984 as ultra wires Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and also ultra vires Sec. 13 of the Gujarat Educational Institutions (Regulations) Act 1984 We can straightaway refer to the rule which is being impugned by the petitioner herein. Mrs. Hiraben R. Joshi the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules which reads as follows:

(2.) She has also pointed out the Schedule 5 framed by virtue of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules. This Schedule makes provisions for giving admission in educational institutions. The learned Counsel points out Clause 3 of this Schedule which reads as follows:

(3.) The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the academic year commenced on 15-6-1988 while as per Clause 3 referred above the minimum are of the candidate should be 15 years at the commencement of the academic year Admittedly the petitioner in this case completes her 15 years on 11-7-1988 and on 15-6-19B8 when the academic year commenced she was below the required age. Correctly time petitioner was refused admission in the training course. This is being questioned in this Special Civil Applica- tion. In support of her contention the decision in the case of The Board of Nigh School and Intermediate Education U. P. & Anr. v. Gopal Narain S4h reported in AIR 1973 Allahabad 345 was brought to our notice That is a case in which there was a Government Directive fixing nine years as the minimum age limit for admission to Class VI and also fixing minimum 14 years as a term of eligibility to High School Examination. For such academic courses the Allahabad High Court held the fixation of the age limit and the classification have been made without any particulars or data and such arbitrary fixation will offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. As far as the present case is concerned the admission is to the Primary and Pre-primary Training College Course. The candidates admitted in this Training College have to take up the responsibility of teaching profession Hence the decision of the Allahabad High Court cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner will not be of any sue in deciding the present case. The State Government in its wisdom though it fit that the age of the candidates getting admitted in this course must he 25 at the commence- ment of the academic year. The upper limit of the age has also been given with concession to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. The wisdom of the State Government in fixing the age limit for these who have to get training in this course in our opinion cannot be interfered with or modified by this Court The petitioner has also not pointed out any shocking infirmity in fixing up such an age limit. The age limit fixed opinion seems to be reasonable taking into consideration the course in which such candidates have to be admitted Mr. Pandya the learned Government Pleader who appear on notice points out that there is absolutely 110 provision in the Rule for granting any eXemption. Taking all these points into considerations we do not find that there is any merit in this Special Civil Application and accordingly the same is dismissed. Rule discharged.