CWP No. 2104 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2104 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.11.2011 1. C.W.P. No.2104 of 2011 Enakshi Pant through her father Kamal Pant and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. 2. C.W.P. No.2343 of 2011 Arni Arora through her father Atul Arora and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. 3. C.W.P. No.2349 of 2011 Arshpreet Kaur through her father Randeep Arora and another Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. 4. C.W.P. No.2374 of 2011 Dhriti Hoshiarpuri through her father Ashutosh Hoshiarpuri Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. 5. C.W.P. No.2397 of 2011 Aashita Sood and others Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present:- Shri Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Shri Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWPs 2104,2349 of 2011) Shri Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP 2343 of 2011). CWP No. 2104 of 2011 [2] Shri O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP 2374 of 2011). Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Sukhwinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP 2397 of 2011). Shri Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. with Shri Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. Ms.Alka Sarin, Advocate for respondents 4,5 and 7. Shri Divya Suri, Advocate for Shri Amar Vivek, Advocate for respondent-8. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2104, 2343, 2349, 2374 and 2397 of 2011, as the facts and issues involved are broadly the same, hence need not to be dealt with separately. For brevity, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2104 of 2011. 2. These writ petitions raise an important issue, regarding introduction of uniform pattern to be followed by the schools located in Union Territory, Chandigarh for the purpose of determining eligibility for admissions to LKG and Pre-Nursery classes etc. 3. There appears to be no necessity to delve into the facts and suffice it to notice that a co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 15.02.2011 issued certain directions extending the minimum age of the children for admissions by extending the date of birth from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 for nursery classes and 30.09.2006 to 30.09.2007 for upper K.G.Classes. Another direction was issued to the Education Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh to evolve a uniform admission policy for all these schools. CWP No. 2104 of 2011 [3] 4. Some of the private schools felt aggrieved by the above mentioned directions and preferred appeals including L.P.A. No. 319 of 2011 which were allowed in part by a Division Bench vide order dated 09.03.2011, the operative part whereof reads as under:- “We are, therefore, of the view that the directions in question passed by the learned Single Judge, namely, extending the last date of birth to be eligible to 30.09.2007 for nursery classes and 30.09.2006 of upper K.G. Classes, ought not to have our approval. However, we are in full agreement with the learned Single Judge that the solution to the impasse lies in evolving a uniform admission policy with regard to age in all schools and strict implementation thereof which is the subject matter of the main writ petition that awaits the consideration of the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, allow all these appeals, set- aside the direction of the learned Single Judge extending the last date of birth to be eligible for admission for nursery and upper K.G. Classes to 30.09.2007 and 30.09.2006, respectively. Consequently, the appellant-schools are permitted to complete the admission process on the basis of the dates as originally announced. The appeals, shall stand disposed of in terms of the above.” 5. It is not in dispute that admissions for the session 2011-12 have since been made in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench, reproduced above. 6. So far as evolution of a uniform policy regarding age of the children to be admitted in all the schools and strict implementation thereof, in relation to which certain observations have been made by the co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 15.02.2011 and which have not been set aside by the Division Bench in appeal, Mr. Kaushal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. Administration, Chandigarh CWP No. 2104 of 2011 [4] states that a specific decision regarding prescription of the age of children has not been taken so far. 7. Since such like policy matters to be applied uniformly in all the schools, ordinarily fall within the domain of the executive, who, ofcourse, before taking any such decision are required to consult all the stake holders, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Education Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh to convene a meeting of the representatives of all the schools and persuade them to evolve a uniform admission policy which can at the best have two cut off dates with regard to the age of children, namely, to grant admissions to the age group of 4+1 and others in 5+1 age group. Suffice it to observe that such a policy decision would prevent not only the uncertainty amongst the parents, it will reduce avoidable burden of school authorities also. It is accordingly directed that let a policy decision be taken in this regard well in advance but before the next academic session 2013-14. The policy decision shall be given wide publicity in the local newspapers so that the parents are fully aware of the age group of their children to be admitted in one or the other school. Dasti. 29.11.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE