No promotion for class 8 pupil who performed poorly, says HC

The Bombay High Court refused to promote a Class 8 student of an international school in Mumbai due to his poor performance. The court is yet to decide whether the recent amendment on promotions should be applied retrospectively or prospectively.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday refused to promote a Class 8 student of an international school, as he had been held back in the same class due to his poor performance.

HT Image

The 12-year-old, who stopped attending the school — Ajmera Global School — after he attained the same standard, had moved the high court through his father challenging the school’s decision to retain him in the same standard. His counsel had relied on a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the School Education and Sports Department on August 20, 2010, and sought orders from the school to promote him to the next standard.

It was argued on his behalf that the GR, issued under provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, provided for compulsory promotion to the next standard of all elementary students (Class 1 to 8) and prohibited schools from retaining children in the same class. His counsel further argued that the GR was applied to the international school as well and therefore the 12-year-old could not have failed in Class 8 and retained the same standard.

The school, affiliated to IB (International Baccalaureate) and CAIE (Cambridge Assessment International Education), on the other hand, pointed out that the state government has amended the Right to Education Rules, 2011, on May 29, 2023, and introduced examinations for Class 5 and Class 8. The amendment has done away with the “compulsory promotion” of Class 5 and Class 8 students and provided for re-examination of students failing in these standards. The amendment also provided that the students failing again in the re-examination should be held back.

The school also pointed out that right from 2019, the performance of the petitioner student has been dismal. It added that time and again the section coordinators, principal, and the head of the school have conveyed advance remarks about the child to his parents, and the parents agreed to pay more attention, but there was no improvement.

The school claimed that the overall performance of the 12-year-old was not up to the mark, and there were remarks of absenteeism, misbehaviour, poor pre-assessment, etc., and even in Class 7, he had scored belong passing marks. He was given an opportunity for re-examination, but he did not perform well, and the same pattern continued in the next academic year.

The division bench of justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Manjusha Deshpande refused to grant an interim order to promote the child to the next standard primarily as the very basis of the petition – provision contained in 2010 GR – was not available to the child and the poor academic performance of the child.

The judges noted that in June 2019, the parents of the petitioner had given an undertaking stating that ‘they were aware that the child’s performance will be under observation for a year and the school had the right to decide repetition of the grade, withdrawal or any other action for the benefit of the child,’ and that there was no denial of the school’s claim that the child’s academic performance was dismal.

The bench reiterated the view of another bench in the petitioner student’s matter stating that the remarks by the school authorities point toward a lack of attention even by parents to the needs of the child. The other bench had said that the child needed to be given some training at home, the right values have to be inculcated, and his habits have also to be improved. “If that is the obligation and responsibility of the parents, then turning around and blaming the school alone would not enable us to issue the writ sought for,” the other bench had said. The bench headed by justice Jamdar agreed with the view and refused to pass an interim order to promote the child to the next standard. The court has, however, kept the petition pending to decide whether the recent amendment should be applied prospectively or retrospectively.