“Career guidance to Class XI & XII students crucial”: Delhi HC directs State Govt to ensure proper counselling system in all schools

Noting that career guidance to students in Class XI and XII is crucial, Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court directed the State government to ensure an appropriate system of counseling in schools, career guidance programs/career fairs, and other resources to assist students.

The single-judge bench further stated that it is indeed essential that students are counseled in their career-related decision-making process and opined that "if students are made aware of the admission policies of different universities, it could only help them in making an informed decision regarding their subject choices".

“Mr. Unmukt Gera, counsel for GNCTD, states that such systems must be in place, although he is unable to readily cite the same. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to GNCTD/ DoE to examine this issue in consultation with experts in the field, and in case, any lacunae are required to be filled in, they may do so by issuing appropriate directions to schools”, the court stated.

Justice Narula was hearing a plea filed by the father of a boy, who was unsuccessful in securing admission at the Univerisity of Delhi and blamed the failure on a lack of career guidance by Bal Bhavan International School, Dwarka.

The petitioner claimed that when he chose Mass Media and Physical Education in Class XI and XII, he was not warned that these subjects are not considered "Main" subjects by DU and are instead treated as "Elective," resulting in a 2.5% deduction of marks from aggregate marks for selection in DU colleges.

He sought the intervention of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to ensure proper dispensation of information and guidance to students at the time of subject selection in Class XI and XII. The petitioner also sought directions to the school to adequately compensate him and other students for the prejudice caused to them because of the school's acts /omissions.

However, the court opined, “The Prayer against Respondent No. 2 – CBSE to cancel affiliation/ accreditation of the School, lacks foundation and is untenable. Improper career counseling to some students cannot be a ground for de-affiliation/ de-accreditation, in the absence of any statutory provision that provides for such a penalty”.

Similarly, the court said, “the prayer of the grant of compensation can also not be entertained considering highly disputed facts that have emerged from the pleadings. The School has asserted that guidelines issued by CBSE are diligently followed and students in Class XI are free to opt for any subjects prescribed by CBSE”.

Observing that the School does not dissuade students from opting for any subject, the court held, “There is no basis for the Court to hold that the choice exercised by Petitioner was not voluntarily or was exercised under persuasion….no reason for the Court to hold that the School should have disapproved or opposed the option because of its likely impact in admission prospects to DU. Petitioner's contention is farfetched and exhibits a very orthodox approach towards education centered around scoring marks.”

Furthermore, rejecting the prayers of the petitioner directing DU to clarify its stand on subjects for purpose of admission, the court stated it is infructuous keeping in mind the current admission process of DU.

Moreover, the court observed, “The Court has no reason to direct DU to dilute its standards for admission, as fixing the eligibility criteria is a policy decision and lies within the exclusive domain of the University. No foundation or legal right has been demonstrated before this Court to issue any directions to DU qua admission procedure followed by them for intake of students under the erstwhile admission regime”.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition, with directions to the GNCTD/ DoE to examine this issue in consultation with experts in the field, and said that in case, any lacunae are required to be filled in, they may do so by issuing appropriate directions to schools.

Case Title: Shishram as Guardian of Mr. Kawal v. Bal Bhavan International School & Ors.