MINAKSHI GANDHI Vs. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miss Minakshi Gandhi, even though raised larger issues challenging prescription of minimum age for a private candidate to take 8th Class examination when concededly no such age has been prescribed for a regular student, limited her claim during the course of argument to permit her to appear, in 8th class examination on the facts peculiar to her alone. She claims right to appear in 8th class examination that, in fact, commenced on 16th February, 1996, on the sole basis that she was entitled and, thus, was permitted to appear for 5th class examination three years earlier to when she requested to appear in the 8th class examination and therefore the cut off date of minimum of 12 years was fixed by completely ignoring the claim of those who like the petitioner had appeared three years earlier in the 5th class examination. Before the contentions raised by Mr. Aman Kashyap, learned Counsel representing the petitioner are noticed, it shall be useful to give brief facts constraining the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Petitioner appeared for 5th class examination conducted by the Department of Education, Punjab. That she cleared the examination is evidenced from Annexure P-2 certificate issued to her by the Department of Education, Punjab (S.C.E.R.T). The petitioner being regular student in a private school was promoted to Class 6th, 7th and 8th during the three years preceding her attempt to appear in the 8th class examination. Her candidature was, however, cancelled vide letter Annexure P-1 on the ground that she did not complete three years studies as on 31st of October, 1995. Before the matter might proceed any further, it is relevant to mention here that when the petitioner appeared for 5th examination in 1993, the prescribed minimum age was 9 years as on 7th January of the year when the candidate was to appear in the said examination.

(3.) As mentioned earlier, in the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the basic contention was that no such minimum age has been prescribed for candidates studying in Government school, therefore, no such age could be prescribed for a candidate studying in a private school and a distinction made on the basis of a candidate studying in a private or Government school had not rationale and no object to be achieved. The same was arbitrary and against the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.