Bombay High Court questions rationale behind Maharashtra rules barring non-science stream class 10 students from pursuing science later

There is no rationale in Maharashtra's regulations disallowing a student from option for science stream after class 10 merely because the student did not opt for science stream in class 10, the Bombay High Court recently observed [Krish Rajendra Chordiya v State of Maharashtra]..A division bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale took note of the fact that subject choices are made around Class 8 or 9 by students, and it would be unreasonable to expect a 14-year-old's decision to be determinative of their entire future. "We see no rationale why 10th students who do not take science should not be admitted to the science stream later. In fact, the choice of subjects at the SCC/ICSE schools is not made in the 10th standard but at least a year or two earlier, around the 8th or 9th standard. It is surely unreasonable to expect that the decision of a 14-year-old will be determinative of his entire future," the Court said.In this regard, the Court also placed reliance on the National Education Policy. "We are fortified in this view by a look at the National Education Policy. The entire pattern is proposed to be changed. The old trifecta of Science-Arts-Commerce is to be done away with, and rightly so," the Court recorded..It was noted that the emphasis in the National Education Policy was now on identifying and nurturing potential and providing flexible learning options. "If this is the policy trend, we are unable to see how the inflexibility — to say nothing of the tardiness — of the 4th Respondent’s approach fulfils any objective at all. We were compelled to ask what the purpose of the 4th Respondent is: to assist students and provide and encourage education opportunities or to discover new ways to stymie them?".The order was passed in a plea filed by a student from Nashik, who had scored 92 per cent in class 10 from the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) and later opted for the science stream. He secured admission in Gargi Junior College in the science stream and cleared class 11 with first class. He subsequently, appeared for the class 12 Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) exams conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (MSBSHSE).However, after exams, the MSBSHSE passed an order holding him ineligible for the science stream and therefore cancelled his admission in the faculty. The board's reason for the order was that the petitioner did not opt for science as a subject in his class 10. Therefore, they held back his results..In the background of these facts, the High Court examined the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act 1965 which allows only students with a minimum of 40 per cent marks in science in class 10 exams to opt for the science stream. As per the Act, science subjects include science, general science, physics, chemistry, biology, physiology and hygiene, and other comparable science subjects.The petition had chosen English, Hindi, History (along with Civics and Geography), Mathematics, Commercial Studies, and Physical Education..The Bench recorded the need for clarity on what comprised 'other comparable subjects’ given that the ICSE board was an equivalent board."The explanation itself includes a subject such as ‘physiology and hygiene’ and it is unclear to us why 'hygiene' is science, but 'physical education' is not," the bench observed in the order..The order said a weighty factor in the case was the performance of the petitioner and the duration for which he was allowed to study science. "He has in fact completed the class 11 and 12. He has done well above average in both. Not just that, but he has appeared for highly competitive entrance examinations to among the most prestigious engineering and technical colleges in the country and at least in one has secured provisional admission.".Another question that the Court took note of was whether it was reasonable for the board to undertake any form of scrutiny after the petitioner had completed two years of class 11 and 12 rather than as soon as practicable after admission to class 11..Therefore, as an interim order, the bench ordered that the MSBSHSE declare the petitioner's class 12 result so that he can secure admission in an engineering college..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate YS Jahagirdar and advocates Suresh M Sabrad, Sharvari Kanetkar, Pratik Sabrad, Amey Sawant, and Gracy S.Additional Government Pleader AA Purav and ddvocates Kiran Gandhi, and Rooshna Sayyed appeared for the respondents. .[Read Order]