Judgment DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ (oral) 1. This review petition is filed by the Forum for Promotion of Quality Education for All. It is stated in the application that the applicant is a forum representing 450 private schools and that the said schools were not heard when we had passed the order dated 26.9.2007. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant also has submitted that the order dated 26.9.2007 is against the mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and, therefore, a review is called for in respect of the aforesaid order. 2. We have heard all the other counsels present before us. 3. A bare perusal of the order dated 26.9.2007 would indicate that when we passed the said order counsels for different schools were present in the Court. We had heard them as it is clearly recorded therein that the counsels for different schools had pointed out that there could be scope of mushrooming of play schools and that there could be difficulties in the transitional phase. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid plea taken in the present application by the applicant is incorrect. Schools were aware about the proceedings, the report submitted by the Ganguli Committee and the decision of the Government of Delhi. 4. Be that as it may, we had in the order dated 26.9.2007 only noticed and recorded the decision of the Government of NCT of Delhi which was conveyed to us through an affidavit of the Directorate of Education. In the affidavit filed by the Government it was stated that in the meeting dated 3rd September, 2007 certain decisions were taken by the Government. We had referred to the statement made in the said affidavit that the Directorate of Education is taking appropriate action and measures to implement the aforesaid decision, before the start of the next academic session 2008-09. We had also recorded statement of the counsel appearing for the Government that since admission process for 2007-08 was over, the aforesaid decision cannot be implemented in the current academic session. We referred to the policy decision and the statements made by the counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi. 5. We had also recorded statement of the counsel appearing for the Government that since admission process for 2007-08 was over, the aforesaid decision cannot be implemented in the current academic session. We referred to the policy decision and the statements made by the counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi. 5. The apprehensions conveyed by the different schools, it was held, were misplaced as the Government of NCT of Delhi had given a clear statement that for implementing the aforesaid decision some guidelines may have to be framed by the Directorate of Education and while doing so suggestions given by the Ganguli Committee will be considered. It was also stated that the Government will ensure that the transition is smooth and does not cause inconvenience to the parents and the students. We, therefore, after recording the statements made by the Government disposed of the writ petition. This Court has not passed any order or direction in the order dated 26th September, 2007 of which review is sought, in respect of the minimum age to be completed by a student for entering into the nursery class or any school. The Government had taken a decision and while doing so the Ganguli Committee report as also earlier orders passed by this Court were noticed. However, the final decision was taken by the Government of Delhi. The order dated 26.9.2007 records the independent decision of the Government and the Court in the said order recorded verbatim the contents of the said decision of the Government. We find no reason to review our order dated 26th September, 2007 on the grounds mentioned in the application. 6. In our considered opinion, the reliance on Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, which is yet to be notified, is also misplaced. The said Article reads as under:-?21-A. Right to education:-The state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.? 7. In our considered opinion Article 21-A provides only for free and compulsory education to all children between the age of six to fourteen years and the same does not in any manner stipulate or prescribes any condition as to what should be a minimum age for admission of a child in a school. 7. In our considered opinion Article 21-A provides only for free and compulsory education to all children between the age of six to fourteen years and the same does not in any manner stipulate or prescribes any condition as to what should be a minimum age for admission of a child in a school. In that view of the matter, this contention has no merit and is dismissed. CM No.15468/2007(for impleadment) In view of the above order, this application has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed. CM Nos.15467 and 15469/2007(for condonation of delay) In view of the order passed in LPA No.196/2004, the application seeking condonation of delay also stand disposed of.