JUDGMENT 1. - Akhil Bbartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the petitioner in this writ petition, is a registered society working for the welfare of students In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing that the new system of education on 10+2+3 pattern shall not apply to the students who appeared at the Higher Secondary Examination (11th Class) in the academic session 1987-88 and, it may further be directed that after passing the Higher Secondary Class (11th Class) such students may be given admission to the 1st Year TDC in the University as per merits as earlier. 2. It appears that 10+2 pattern for higher secondary course had been applied in several States, but in the State of Rajasthan the Higher Secondary Course conducted by the Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan (herein-after referred to as the `Board') is a 11 year-course on 10+1 pattern and after passing the Higher Secondary Examination on 10+1 pattern the students could join Three Year Degree Course (TDC) of the University of Rajasthan. With effect from 1988-89 academic session Higher Secondary Course on 10+2 pattern has been introduced by the Board and as a result the students who had passed Higher Secondary Examination of the Board on passing the 11th Class on the 10+1 pattern are not eligible to join the first year TDC, they would be required to undertake further study for one year in 12th Class which is called as Senior Secondary or in pre-TDC Class in the University. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid change in the pattern of education whereunder the students who have passed Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board in the year 1988 on 10+1 pattern are not eligible to join the first year TDC, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Notice was issued to the Board, respondent No. 2 herein, requiring it to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and, in response to the said notice a reply has been filed. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said reply. 5. 4. Notice was issued to the Board, respondent No. 2 herein, requiring it to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and, in response to the said notice a reply has been filed. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said reply. 5. The first contention that has been urged by Shri R. D. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the new scheme has been introduced abruptly without giving prior notice to the students and as a result, the students who have passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board in the year 1988 have been pre-judicially affected inasmuch as they will be required to study for one more year in order to complete the graduation. In support of his aforesaid submission, the learned counsel has pointed out that on 8th January, 1987. the Principal of the Uccha Madhyamic Adarsh Vidya Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Board, whereby a clarification was sought as to whether the studies in 11th Class under 10+2 pattern would commence from July 1, 1987 and, in reply to the said letter, the Secretary of the Board, in his letter dated 21st February, 1987 had stated that from July 1987 studies for Class 11th would not be in the 10+2 pattern. The learned counsel has urged that contrary to the clarification given in the aforesaid letter dated 21st February, 1987, the Higher Secondary Course on 10+2 pattern has been introduced, as a result of which the students who passed to the Higher Secondary Examination in i988 have been pre-judicially affected. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the Board, it has been stated that 10+2+3 system has now been accepted in all parts of the country and in pursuance of the National Policy on Education-1986, the state of Rajasthan also decided to accept the said pattern with effect from 1988-89 session. In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the Board, it has been stated that 10+2+3 system has now been accepted in all parts of the country and in pursuance of the National Policy on Education-1986, the state of Rajasthan also decided to accept the said pattern with effect from 1988-89 session. It is also stated in the said reply that after the said decision was taken a press-note was issued which was published in the various newspapers on 2nd July, 1987, wherein it was stated that the State of Rajasthan has taken a decision that the Higher Secondary Course on 10+2 pattern would be brought into force with effect from the current session, which means that the students who were taking admission in the 11th Class in July 1987 would be treated as joining first part of Higher Secondary and students would have to study in the school for 12th Class in 1988-89 and only thereafter they would be able to get admission in TDC of the University. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this press-note was published after the commencement of the session on July 1, 1987 and after the students have already taken admission in the 11th Class on the basis of the old scheme of Higher Secondary Education on 10+1 pattern. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that 10+2 pattern of Higher Secondary Education was introduced in the 9th Class only in 1986 and, therefore, it could not be made applicable to the students who have passed Higher Secondary Course on 10+1 pattern in the examination for the 11th Class held in the year 1988. 6. We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, but we are unable to accept the same. In our opinion, by the Press-note published on July 2, 1987, the Board had given notice to the students who had joined the 11th Class in July, 1987 that they would have to study for one more year in 12th Class in the year 1988-89 and only thereafter they would be entitled to join the TDC of the University Moreover,the students who joined the 11th Class in 1981 cannot claim any vested right so as to object to the introduction of Higher Secondary Education on 10+2 pattern. where under such students are being required to undertake study in 12th Class (Senior Secondary)/pre-TDC for one further year before joining TDC of the University. In this context, it would be relevant to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab University v. Devjani Chakrabarti ( AIR 1984 SC 1444 ) . The said case also related to the introduction fiction of the 10+2+3 scheme. The Punjab University had earlier decided on 10th December, 1977 that the 12th Standard Examination conducted by the Board/University under the new 10+2+3 educational system would be treated as equivalent to pre-medical/Pre-Engineering/BA Pt-I/II. Sc. Part I/B. Com. Part I Examination according to the combination of subjects The said University further decided to treat the 11th Standard of the new 10+2+3 system as equivalent to the pre-University Examination of the University. Subsequently, on 18th April, 1980, the Punjab University decided that the first year student of the 42 course in the 10+2+3 system of the Central board's schools why does not take a public examination at the end of the first year should not be considered as equivalent to the student who has passed the Pre-University examination of the Punjab University for joining the premedical/pre-Engineering/BA Pt. I/B. Sc. Pt. I/B Com. Pt. I of the University. On 7th May, 1980 the Punjab University decided that the 12th Standard Examination in the new 10+2+3 system conducted by any recognised Board/Council/University shall be treated as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the University. The students who had joined 10+2+3 course on the basis of the earlier decisions of University dated 10th December,1977 and 4th June, 1978 challenged the subsequent decisions of the University by filing a writ petition in the High Court, wherein they contended that the notifications dated 18th April, 1980 and 7th May, 1980 could not he given retrospective effect so as to take away their vested right. They also invoked the principle of promissory estoppel. A Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana while rejecting the submission of the students based on the principle of promissory estoppel, accepted their contention with regard to the retrospective operation of the notification and allowed the writ petition on the ground that the decisions which were taken on 18th April, 1980 and 7th May, 1950 were bad on the ground of having retrospective in operation. The Supreme Court reversed the said judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the impugned decisions of the Punjab University Syndicate were prima facie prospective in operation and valid and that they did not become retrospecite merely because they applied to students who had already started their educational careers. In our opinion, the principles laid down in the said decision are fully applicable to the present case, and the decision to introduce the new system of education on 10+2+3 pattern cannot be held to be bad on the ground that it pre-judicially affects the students who joined the Higher Secondary Course prior to the introduction of the said scheme. 7. Another contention that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the new system of education on 10+2+3 pattern has not been applied to all the educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan and that it has been applied only in a few schools and such a piece-meal application is not permissible. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the Circular (Annx. 4) issued by the Secretary of the Board, which has been sent to the Principals of all the Higher Secondary Schools and all the Education Officers. In the said Circular with regard to academic studies, it has been stated that on 1st July, 1988, study for Class 12th shall be started in some selected schools and such schools would be selected by the State Government and the students who have passed 11th Class would be able to take admission in 12th Class in those schools and the examination of 12th Class would be conducted by the Board. With regard to the vocational studies, it has been stated in the said circular that vocational studies are being conducted in 56 selected schools from July 1987 in 11th Class. On the basis of the aforesaid Circular the learned counsel has urged that out of about 1000 schools in the State of Rajasthan studies under 10+2 pattern have been started only in 56 schools Shri H.C. Rastogi, the learned counsel for the Board, has invited our attention to the National Policy on Education 1986, wherein provision has been made for vocational education. In para 5.23 of the said policy, it has been provided as under : "It is proposed that vocational courses cover 10 per cent of higher secondary students by 1990 and 25 per cent by 1995. Steps will he taken to see that a substantial majority of the products of vocational courses are employed or become self-employed. Review of the courses offered would be regularly undertaken. Government will also review its recruitment policy to encourage diversification at the secondary level". 8. Shri H.C. Rastogi has urged that at present vocational courses are not part of the Higher Secondary Education on 10+2 pattern and that merely because vacational courses have been started in a few schools only, it does not mean that 10+2 pattern of Higher Secondary Education cannot be introduced. According to Shri H. C. Rastogi under the new educational policy, it will take a considerable time to introduce vocational course in all the schools. We find considerable force in the aforesaid submission of Shri H.C. Rastogi and, in our opinion, on the basis of the Circular (Annex. 4), it cannot be said that the new system of education on 10+2+3 pattern cannot be introduced from the current session. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also urged that the State Government has framed Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 37 of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957. The learned counsel has invited our attention to Chapter 16 of the said regulations which provides for various examinations that can be conducted by the Board. The submission of the learned counsel is that the said regulation has not been amended and in the absence of any such amendment, the new system of education on 10+2+3 pattern could not be introduced by the Board We have looked into the said Regulations and we find that under the Regulations, the Board is competent to conduct Higher Secondary Examination. There is no provision in the Regulation that the Higher Secondary Examination would be on 10+1 pattern. In the circumstances it cannot be said that in view of the said Regulations the Board is not competent to introduce the new system of education on 10+2+3 pattern. 10. No other contention has been urged. 11. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******