In an interim order, the State Board was directed to declare results of a class 12 student whose admission was cancelled on the ground that he did not chose science in class 10.
According to a recent decision by the Bombay High Court, there is no justification in Maharashtra’s regulations that prevent a student from choosing a science stream after class 10 simply because the student did not choose one in class 10. (Krish Rajendra Chordiya v State of Maharashtra).
A division bench made up of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale noted that students choose their subjects in Class 8 or 9, and it is unreasonable to expect a 14-year-old’s decision to be the end all be all of their future.
“We see no rationale why 10th students who do not take science should not be admitted to the science stream later. In fact, the choice of subjects at the SCC/ICSE schools is not made in he 10th standard but at least a year or two earlier, around the 8th or 9th standard. It is surely unreasonable to expect that the decision of a 14-year-old will be determinative of his entire future,” the Court said.
The Court also relied on the National Education Policy in this regard.
“We are fortified in this view by a look at the National Education Policy. The entire pattern is proposed to be changed. The old trifecta of Science-Arts-Commerce is to be done away with, and rightly so,” the Court recorded.
It was noticed that the accentuation in the Public Schooling Strategy was currently on distinguishing and supporting potential and giving adaptable learning choices.
“If this is the policy trend, we are unable to see how the inflexibility — to say nothing of the tardiness — of the 4th Respondent’s approach fulfils any objective at all. We were compelled to ask what the purpose of the 4th Respondent is: to assist students and provide and encourage education opportunities or to discover new ways to stymie them?
A Nashik student who had received a 92 percent grade in class 10 from the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) and later chose to study science received the order in response to a plea.
However, following the examinations, the MSBSHSE issued a decision declaring him ineligible for the science stream and denying him admission to the faculty. The petitioner did not choose science as a subject for his 10th grade class, which was the board’s justification for the order. As a result, they delayed his results.
He got into the science program at Gargi Junior College and passed 11th grade with a first.
The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (MSBSHSE) administered him to the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) exams for class 12.
In the background of these facts, the High Court examined the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act 1965 which allows only students with a minimum of 40 per cent marks in science in class 10 exams to opt for the science stream
Science, general science, physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, hygiene, and other comparable science subjects are included in the Act.
English, Hindi, history (along with civics and geography), mathematics, commercial studies, and physical education were the subjects selected in the petition.
Since the ICSE board was an equivalent board, the Bench noted that “other comparable subjects” needed to be defined clearly.
“The explanation itself includes a subject such as ‘physiology and hygiene’ and it is unclear to us why ‘hygiene’ is science, but ‘physical education’ is not,” the bench observed in the order
According to the order, the petitioner’s performance and the length of time he was allowed to study science were significant factors in the case.
“He has in fact completed the class 11 and 12. He has done well above average in both. Not just that, but he has appeared for highly competitive entrance examinations to among the most prestigious engineering and technical colleges in the country and at least in one has secured provisional admission.”
Another inquiry that the Court observed was whether it was sensible for the board to embrace any type of investigation after the candidate had finished two years of class 11 and 12 instead of when practicable after admission to class 11.
Therefore, in order for the petitioner to gain admission to an engineering college, the bench issued an interim order directing the MSBSHSE to declare his class 12 results.
Senior Attorney YS Jahagirdar and the attorneys Suresh M. Sabrad, Sharvari Kanetkar, Pratik Sabrad, Amey Sawant, and Gracy S. appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Additional Government Leader AA Purav and the advocates Kiran Gandhi and Rooshna Sayyed appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Written by- Archana chandane, intern under legal vidhiya