NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kumar Trivedi on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat on behalf of respondent no.3.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following prayers:-

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, orders or directions for issuance of writ/direction to the respondent no.03 to give admission to the daughter of the petitioner namely ‘Mihira’ in 1st standard in the coming academic year of 2023-24 in his School namely Podar International School, Berna Road, Mahavirnagar, Himatnagar;.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent no.02 to take appropriate steps to make sure that the daughter of the petitioner gets admission in the school of her choice as per the law and her fundamental rights are not violated;.

(C) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.01 to issue a notification/circular clarifying that the children completing age of 6th year on 01.06.2023 are to be considered as eligible for admission in 1st standard in the coming year of 2023-2024;.

(D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioners.”

3. The grievance raised by the present petitioner in the petition is that though the child of the petitioner named Mihira Ashlesh Patel was born on 1st June, 2017 and whereas according to the Notification of the State Government dated 31st January, 2020, more particularly whereby sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rule, 2009 has been amended which inter alia requires that ‘no elementary school shall admit a child in the first standard who has not completed sixth year of age on the 1 st June of the academic year,’ by misinterpreting the amended rule, the respondents more particularly, as per the policy of the respondent no.1, the child of the petitioner could not get admission in the school of respondent no.3 since the admission details of the child of the petitioner could not be uploaded on the portal concerned since the portal does not accept/recognize admission to a student born on 1st June of any particular year.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi would rely upon the decisions of learned Coordinate Benches of this Court in case of Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala vs. Director of Primary Education Gujarat State reported in (2017) 1 GLR 694 and in case of Hariom Mukeshbhai Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6180 of 2023, Dt. 02.05.2023 whereby the learned Coordinate Benches were considering issues similar to the issue raised in the present petition and would submit that the learned Coordinate Benches have inter alia laid down that a child would complete the required years of age on the 1st June of that year and whereas under such circumstances, the child ought to get admission to the elementary school.

4. This petition is attempted to be opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt and whereas considering the law laid down by learned Coordinate Benches and more particularly since the learned AGP would not be in a position to submit that either the said decisions have been interfered with or the said decisions have been impliedly overruled, in the considered opinion of this Court, opposition by the learned AGP cannot be countenanced.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat would submit that as a school, they have to abide by the instructions and whereas they otherwise would not have any objection in giving admission to the child in question.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the decisions of learned Coordinate Benches. It would appear that learned Coordinate Bench in case of Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala (supra) was considering a case where the child was born on 2nd June of a particular year and whereas the learned Coordinate Bench has inter alia observed that by adverting to the principle of alternative interpretation, the child should be held to be completing the required period of age as on 1st June of that year and whereas, since the child was missing out by one day, the child was directed to be admitted. In the later decision in case of Hariom Mukeshbhai Bhatt (supra), the learned Coordinate Bench was considering a case with exactly similar facts more particularly the date of birth of the child being 1st June, 2017 and whereas the child was denied admission on the said count. It would also appear that even the notification in question is also the same. It would further appear that relying upon the decision of Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala (supra) the learned Coordinate Bench in the later decision had directed admission of the child in question.

6.1. Relevant observations of the learned Coordinate Bench (Coram: Mr. N.V.Anjaria, J.) in Yusufbhai Mamadbhai Dabawala (supra) more particularly at paragraph nos. 7, 7.1, 8 and 8.1 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit:-

“7. In the present case, it is possible to evolve and apply yet another principle of interpretation by adverting to alternative interpretation. When any word or group of words in the statute are capable of being supplied two alternative interpretation, essentially leading to the same meaning, and when, without doing violence to the words or without deviating from the object, rather in order to endear the object of the word in the statute or the object of the statute or rule in general, it is possible to accord alternative meaning, such alternative meaning should be applied to make the provision of law or rule purposive.

7.1 Having regard to the above principles of interpretation, it is eminently possible to construe “five years of age” by attaching the meaning to the word “years” as aggregation of days of an year which is comprised in 365 days. When Rule 3(1) of the Rules provides that the child should have completed five years of age as on 1st June of that year, the emphasis and leaning is on the completion of years, and the mathematical exactitude for understanding the word “age” is not warranted, especially when it is one day’s difference applied to attach inability on the child to be admitted to the elementary school. In such circumstances, a virtuous interpretation would be to count the five years in terms of total days in year by attaching such meaning to the word “year” and considering the age of the child in that way, rather than reckoning the age with reference to date. Accordingly and in this view, child must be held to be completing five years of age as on 1st June of that year.

8. A child admitted to the school and introduced to education is invigoration of Article 21 read with Article 21A of the Constitution. From the societal standpoint, introducing a child to elementary, primary and education at all levels is to lay a reinforcing stone in the foundations of civilized society, to contribute to make the democracy vibrant and worthy with educated citizenry. No stone should be left unturned to ensure that one and all gets education. Right to education and right to free and compulsory education to a child being fundamental rights, it can be best accorded in company of the principles flowing from Article 14. Article 14 always strikes at unreasonableness. It seeks to weed out all elements of arbitrariness in application of any law or rule.

8.1 Denying a child admission to a school for want of an illusory deficit of one day in completion of five years, which in fact does not exist, would not be countenanced by the Constitutional Court when it is eminently possible to construe the Rule without supplying thereto any additions and doing any variation or violence to the language of the Rule.”

6.2. Furthermore, the observation of the learned Coordinate Bench (Coram: Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.) in the later decision of Hariom Mukeshbhai Bhatt (supra) where the facts were exactly similar, more particularly, paragraph nos. 8 and 9 being relevant for the present purpose are reproduced herein below for benefit:-

“8. The State Government, has now come out with new Rules which, provides that no Elementary School shall admit a child in 1st standard who has not completed 6th year of age on 1st June of academic year. As per the said Rule, the requirement is that the school shall not admit a child in 1st standard who has not completed 6 years of age on 1st June of the academic year.

9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the date of birth of the son of the petitioner is 01.06.2017 and therefore, would be completing 6 years but with a shortage of one day. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court, applying the principle of interpretation held that when any word or group of words in the statute are capable of being supplied two alternative interpretation, essentially leading to the same meaning, and when, without doing violence to the words or without deviating from the object, rather in order to endear the object of the word in the statute or the object of the statute or rule in general, it is possible to accord alternative meaning, such alternative meaning should be applied to make the provision of law or rule purposive. In paragraph 7.1, this Court, has held and observed that having regard to the said principle of interpretation, it is possible to construe “five years of age” by attaching the meaning to the word “years” as aggregation of days of an year which is comprised in 365 days. It has been held and observed that when Rule 3(1) of the Rules provides that the child should have completed five years of age as on 1st June of that year, the emphasis and leaning is on the completion of years, and the mathematical exactitude for understanding the word “age” is not warranted, especially when it is one day’s difference applied to attach inability on the child to be admitted to the elementary school. It has been also pointed out that in such circumstances, a virtuous interpretation would be to count the five years in terms of total days in year by attaching such meaning to the word “year” and considering the age of the child in that way, rather than reckoning the age with reference to date. It has been therefore, concluded that child must be held to be completing five years of age as on 1st June of that year.”

7. Considering the law laid down by this Court and in view of this Court since both the decisions applies on all fours to the facts of the present case, therefore, the action on the part of the respondent in not admitting the child of the present petitioner cannot be countenanced and is hereby directed to be quashed and set aside and whereas the respondents are hereby directed to forthwith ensure the admission of the child in respondent no.3 School considering that the child fulfills the age criteria as per the amendment brought about vide Notification dated 31st January, 2020 in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rule, 2009.

8. With these observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed. Direct service is permitted.