Minimum Age for Class 1 Admission is 6 Years: High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has definitively ruled that six years is the minimum age for Class 1 admissions in Haryana. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi has instructed the State to amend provisions in its existing rules that currently allow children below six years to be admitted.

Justice Sethi pointed out that the provision in the Haryana Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, which permits admissions to Class 1 for children between five and six years, contradicts both the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020. These acts clearly state six years as the permissible age for admission in Class 1. 

As a one-time exception, Justice Sethi ordered that the petitioners would remain eligible for admission in the academic year 2025-26, since the 2011 rules still specify the eligible age as between five and six years. 

A petition was filed highlighting contradictions between state government's 2011 Rules and statutory requirements. The court further stated that allowing admissions for children younger than six years in class 1 violates the parent law.

Justice Sethi noted there was no explanation on record for why the State prescribed a different age when framing the 2011 rules to implement the 2009 Act. "The State should have removed the ambiguity and contraction in the 2011 Rules by amending them once it decided in 2023 to implement the National Education Policy-2020," the court stated. 

When Education Department officials were asked to explain the difficulties in aligning the 2011 Rules with the 2009 Act and NEP, they responded that the matter was under consideration and would be addressed.

Justice Sethi expressed frustration with the delay, questioning: "Can an Education Department having a crucial role to play in the education of children linger on the issue to bring the 2011 Rules in conformity with the 2009 Act as well as the National Education Policy, 2020, by amending the Rule?" He added that the State clearly understood the need for amendment but was "moving at its own sweet pace," despite the same issue being raised before the Court for the previous academic session.