The Kerala High Court ruled that the formulation of the curriculum is vested in the hands of experts in the field of education and it is not modified as to the wishes of the students.
- The Writ Petition challenging the existing curriculum of the course (I.T.I) and the only one day declared as a holiday in the week.
- The petitioner argued that the syllabus of the course and the hours of training has to be revised under National Skill Qualification Frame Scheme.
- He further states that the two days of holidays in a week is to be allowed, in order to facilitate the students for pursuing other courses and the financially backward students is able to earn income to satisfy their needs.
- The respondent contended that the student made the contrary statements, leads to confusion over the matter in the plea.
The High Court analysed the representation of petitioner made before the Chief Minister of Kerala to revisited the syllabus of the course. The representation does not have a statutory value. So, the government of Kerala is not obliged to pass an order relevant to it.
The Court citied the various judgements of Supreme court, “the court has no power to made changes in the policy as it is vested in the hands of the legislative body.” It further said that the request of the petitioner is not be acceded.
Justice Devan Ramachandran held that the special permission of the Institute is given to the students for pursuing the additional course and the request of deduction of working days in a week is irrelevant as to the factum of plea.
The Writ Petition closed because of the Confused statements made by the students before the Court.
CASE NAME: Arun Joseph V. Union of India
NAME: Viswa ganesh K, BALLB (Hons.), School of Excellence in Law, Dr. Ambedkar Law University, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments