The judge recorded the counsel's submission that this will apply to the petitioner approaching this court within time, prior to the last date of application process. (Representational Image)
New Delhi:
Parents who may be aggrieved with AAP government's decision to fix four years as the upper age limit for nursery admission in private unaided schools in Delhi can appeal, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday.
Justice Manmohan made this observation when the counsel for the Delhi government agreed to exempt three kids, who had challenged its December 18, 2015 notification, but sought that the exemption should not be taken as a "precedent for others".
The court then said, "those who come, we will look into their grievances", adding it cannot close the issue.
"Law has to be applied equally. I cannot say that I will not entertain if others come," said the judge.
The court observed that as per the Delhi government counsel, the age bar will not apply to three petitioners -- Uday Pratap Singh Kapoor, Samridhi Singh and Kamakshi M Prakaash.
The judge recorded the counsel's submission that this will apply to the petitioner approaching this court within time, prior to the last date of application process.
The court was hearing a number of pleas by minors, filed through their counsel Akhil Sachar, challenging the Delhi government's December 18, 2015 notification fixing the maximum age for nursery in private unaided schools at four years.
As per the notification issued by the Department of Education, the upper age limits for admission in pre-school, pre-primary and class-I has been prescribed at four years, five years and six years respectively as on March 31 of the year in which admission is being sought.
The nursery admission process in Delhi schools began from January 1 and will conclude on March 31.
Yesterday the court had questioned the AAP government's power to fix an upper age limit for admission. It had also observed that the notification, by which the upper age limit was fixed, did not appear to have a legal sanctity as it was not issued by the LG or under any statute.