Case Title: Arun Joseph vs. Union Of India
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 3767 OF 2024
Decided On: 31.01.2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Facts of the Case:
Chalakkudy, a Government I.T.I. student, filed a petition to change the course curriculum such that Saturdays and Sundays are off. According to the petitioner, this would free up time for financially disadvantaged students to take more classes or work. The government, however, dismissed the appeal, claiming that it is beyond of a student’s authority to choose the curriculum. The petition was denied by the court, which emphasised that curriculum and schedule choices should be made by educational professionals.
Legal Provisions
The case centres on a student’s plea to add Saturdays and Sundays to the Government I.T.I. course’s holiday schedule. According to the petitioner, this would free up time for extra work or classes. The government, however, dismissed the appeal, claiming that the student has no right to control the schedule or methodology of the curriculum and pointing out that there is no legal requirement to take such demands into account. The court denied the petition, noting that educational authorities possess the necessary knowledge to decide on curriculum design and scheduling.
Issues
The case’s principal legal question is whether a student may specify the curriculum of an educational institution. The disparity between the petitioner’s assertion made before the Chief Minister and the writ petition’s stated purpose is another problem. The government’s decision to deny the petitioner’s request raises additional concerns about potential legal rights and responsibilities that may have been violated. Finally, given prior legal decisions restricting such action, the main question is whether the court has jurisdiction to engage in questions of educational policy.
Courts analysis and decision
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument, highlighting the fact that curricular decisions belong to educational authorities and that students cannot choose their own schedules. The petitioner argued for more courses, but the court rejected this as there were inconsistencies in his stated goals and Saturdays off could not be used for this purpose. In addition, the court stated that the government’s denial through Ext.P2 was appropriate because the petitioner’s representation to the Chief Minister was not required by statute. In the end, the court rejected to become involved in issues pertaining to educational policy, citing precedent-bound limitations on its authority.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
