LAHORE: Lahore High Court Chief Justice Ijazul Ahsan has constituted a division bench to decide a number of petitions challenging a policy of Lahore Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) that restricts students of below 12 years of age to get them enrolled to class-IX.

The division bench comprising Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and Justice Shahid Karim is likely to take up the petitions in a couple of days.

Dr Akhtar Husain and other parents filed the petitions against the education board for denying their children registration for class-IX for being younger than the age prescribed under rule 1(A) of chapter 19 of the board calendar.

The petitioners plead that the impugned rule is based on a misconception of the statutory status of Punjab Education Code (PEC) and misreading of provisions of Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act 2014.

They say the PEC is just a set of instructions and guidelines and its clause 29, which prescribes five years as minimum age for admission to class-1 cannot have an overriding effect on the free and compulsory education law, which prescribes no such minimum age limit.

The petitioners state that the impugned rule is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the provisions of article 25-A of the Constitution that promotes the cause of education and provides all citizens with equal right to education.

They say the impugned rule does not affect underage students of O-Level that is a clear violation of constitutional right of matriculation students guaranteed under the article 25.

The petitioners plead that there is no logic or public good in restraining their children from continuing their education and for punishing them for reason of being underage by a few months.

Therefore, the petitioners pray to the court to strike down the illogical policy of the BISE for being an unconstitutional and allow the underage qualified children for registration in class-IX.

Previously, the LHC has allowed several underage students to get enrolled to class-IX on filing petitions separately. None of the petitioners had challenged the policy of the board but sought relief in their personal cases.

Published in Dawn, May 24th, 2016