* THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO + WRIT PETITION NO.5119 OF 2008 % 28.07.2006 # Dogga V.George rep.by its His father D.A Janardhana Rao, R/o.Kothavalasa Vizianagaram Dist .....Petitioner Vs. $ 1. The Govt.of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary Educationa (Se-Exams) Department Secretariat Buildings Hyd. 2. The Director of Govt Examinations Chappel Road Gunfoundry A.P.Hyd. 3. The Dist Educational Officer Vizianagaram Dist. 4. The Head Masater St George High School George Town,Kothavalsa, Vizianagaram Dist. .....Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: MR.S.GOPAL RAO ^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5119 of 2008 Between: Dogga V.George rep.by its His father D.A Janardhana Rao, R/o.Kothavalasa Vizianagaram Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Govt.of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary Educationa (Se-Exams) Department Secretariat Buildings Hyd. 2. The Director of Govt Examinations Chappel Road Gunfoundry A.P.Hyd. 3. The Dist Educational Officer Vizianagaram Dist. 4. The Head Masater St George High School George Town,Kothavalsa, Vizianagaram Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction by calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents bearing Memo No.16049/exams/2007 dt 17-11-2007 and Rc.No.2/D6-2/2008 dt.12-2-2008 and quash the same declaring the same as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14,16&21 of constitutional of India and consequently direct the respondents to condone the shortage of age of the petitioner by according permission to the petitioner to appear in the SSC public Examinations March 2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No.5119 of 2008 ORDER : “As we age, the mystery of time more and more dominates the mind. We live less in the present, which no longer has the solidity that it had in youth; less in the future, for the future every day narrows it’s span. The abiding things lie in the past. –John Buchan. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the correctness of the orders passed by the State Government rejecting the request for condonation of age by more than five years to enable the writ petitioner to appear for SSC public examinations to be held in March, 2008. The writ petitioner whose date of birth is 21.12.1998 was prosecuting his studies at the 4th respondent school. He was showing tremendous progress at his school and in particular in subjects such as Mathematics, Science, Social studies etc. It is also stated that the petitioner had participated at various talent examinations conducted and he seems to have come out in such examinations in flying colors. The Head Master of the school has represented to the State Government taking up his cause soliciting condonation of age so as to enable him to appear for the SSC examinations scheduled to be conducted during March, 2008. As per the policy of the State – as set out in their G.O.Ms.No.63, Education (K-2) Department, dated 16-01-1969, the students are required to have attained the age of 14 years onor before 31st August of the academic year in which the candidate studies his/her X class, for appearing at the SSC examinations. Since the writ petitioner was falling short of 5 years of age by 31.8.2007, the Director of Government Examinations has taken up the issue with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The State Government considered the entire matter and rejected the request of the Head Master of the School for condoning more than five years of age to enable the writ petitioner to appear for the said examinations. The State Government was not inclined to condone as many as five years of age, as, perhaps in its opinion, it might visit the petitioner with disastrous consequences at a latter point of time. The grievance nurtured by the petitioner is two fold : (1) The State Government through Memo dated 27.12.2003 passed orders condoning more than three years period in the case of Ms.Venkata Soujanya to appear for the SSC examinations slated to be conducted during March, 2004. Similarly, even as on 12.02.2008 in the case of Sri J.Srijith, the State Government passed orders condoning a little more than two years to enable the said candidate appear for the examinations during March, 2008 and when it came to the case of the writ petitioner, the request has been unjustly turned down. (2) Instances are not lacking where highly gifted children are permitted to appear for examinations, which are not merely the scholastic examinations, but even University end examinations. The petitioner was seeking to draw inspiration from a news report that one Sri Tadhagath Avthar Tulasi who is just 20 years of age is being conferred with a Doctoral Degree of Ph.d. from the internationally renowned Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore. He contends that gifted and highly talented children should be encouraged, instead of being discouraged from taking to the school end examinations. With age man becomes wiser and youthful follies give way for virtues of later life. To know how to grow old is the master work of wisdom and undoubtedly one of the most difficult chapters in the ‘Great Art of Living of Humanity’. Those who have been entrusted with the task of prescribing the curriculum to be pursued commensurately with the advancement of age have therefore thought of, very carefully enough and prescribed certain minimum ages as the essential requisite criterion for appearing for the examinations. Physical growth and the commensurate intellectual growth are all matters of assessment mostly based upon the calculation of average standards of the society. But, surely there can be instances where the extraordinarly gifted and superbly skilled individuals keep arriving on the scene not quite infrequently. They defy the normal laws and phenomenon of aging and show great sense of maturity and wisdom right from a very young age. Such cases call for an exception to be carved out from the normal rule which is otherwise applicable for an averagely gifted child. Since the assessment of the intellectual ability and the dexterity to handle stresses of life even at the prime of age, are factors which are mostly capable of being ascertained not by the superficial dictates, but upon a careful analysis of certain well defined scientific data and since Courts do not have such capacity, consequently prefer to place heavier reliance upon the expertise available both with the administrator as well as the institutions which are capable of giving expert advice on the subject. As was already noticed supra, the policy maker has chosen an age of 14+ years as the most appropriate and suitable age for a child to appear for the SSC (X Class public examinations) and the margin of flexibility for condoning the gap in this regard has been pegged at two or three years, at best. In such special cases, the State Government alone was exercising such powers. But since in the present case, the petitioner has been soliciting condonation of more than five years of age, I solicited the assistance of the Professor and Head of the Department of Psychology of Andhra University. Accordingly, the Head and Director, Consultant Psychologist, Centre for Psychological Assessment and Counselling, Andhra University has undertaken the assessment of the writ petitioner and accordingly subjected him to the following four tests on 2.4.2008 and 3.4.2008 : (1) Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM). (2) Malin’s Intelligence Scale for Children (MISC). (3) Children’s Apperception Test – Indian Adaptation (CAT). (4) Achenbach’s Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL). In the opinion of the learned Professor, the writ petitioner can be considered to be above average in intelligence and he has been found to be above average intellectually as compared to most children of his age range. His opinion in the matter is to the following effect : “From the test results given above and my observation of the child during the testing process it is clear that George is a bright child with an above average intellectual capacity that is defined for children of that age. Taking into consideration the behaviors that the parents have expressed in their ratings and my observations of the child (his restlessness, inattention, reluctance to respond, excessive time on doing the tests) during the testing process it is my opinion that these behaviors may be ways of expressing resentment indirect ways. However, at this time he does not have symptoms that are indicative of maladjustment or of succumbing to pressures. They may however, be precursors to and indications of future problems.” From a perusal of the assessment made by the learned Professor of the University, it becomes very clear that the writ petitioner cannot be considered to be such an extraordinarily gifted child to be pressurized or forced hard to face the vagaries of life far ahead of his age. Sometimes, inadvertently though, it is those who surround the bright children, that seek to form the opinion about their prowess rather than the child himself. The aspirations of the parents could be understandably sky high for securing the necessary recognition of the gifts and talents of their children. But, however, the dangers and risks involved in exposing the precious children to the temptations of achievements, add up to their later year woes and sometimes might even produce disastrous consequences later on in life. The least of such risks being a “burn out of the intellect” of the individual. The slow and steady blossoming process should be allowed as nearer a time span as the very nature would have demanded of it. Pushing through the hurdles, with a nudge here and there, is likely to be of the same effect of seeking to burn a candle from both ends. The endearing and precious pleasures of childhood should not be permitted to be sacrifised for the sake of fast track acedemic pursuits. The glorious future awaits him and has not yet opened it’s doors of welcome. Therefore, I find that there is greater sanity to the exercise carried out by the State in this regard. I therefore, do not find any justifiable reason for condoning as high as five years of age for a student to appear for SSC public examinations. I only hope and trust that this precious child would understand and would not get disappointed as this Court never attempted to throw cold water on his burning aspirations, but has only seen to it that the desired process of faster reaching the goals, than many of his peers, is commensurately slowed down. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is therefore dismissed. But, however without costs. I place on record my sincere appreciation of the excellent assistance rendered by Prof. M.V.Raju, Head and Director, Consultant Psychologist, Centre for Psychological Assessment and Counselling, Andhra University. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this judgment to him as well. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: LR copy to be marked. (bo) knk 29-04-2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}