Understanding the right to vocational training

Education is the most effective vehicle for human growth. It expands, enhances and enhances a person’s vision of the future. Without knowledge, a man is nothing more than a beast.

The human being emancipates himself through education, which leads to his liberation from ignorance. According to Pestalozzi, education is a continuous process of natural, harmonious and gradual development of the innate powers of man. According to folklore, “the ability of a nation to translate its knowledge into wealth and social good through the process of innovation will influence its future in the 21st century”, and that is why the 21st century is known as the “age of wisdom”. In the case of Brown v. Board of Education[1], the importance of education was stated succinctly: “It is the very cornerstone of good citizenship. Today it is the first tool for educating children in cultural values, preparing them for future vocational training and helping them to adapt to their environment. It is said that a child is the future of the country.

“Although the right to pursue higher (vocational) education is not directly established in Part III of the Constitution, it is essential to remember that vocational training is not really a gift from the government. State is strongly committed to improving access to education at all levels.” [2] Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declared that access to professional education is not a “governmental generosity” and that the State has explicitly committed itself to contributing to its distribution at all levels. According to the Supreme Court, this commitment is significantly greater for children whose backgrounds place significant barriers in their path to receiving a quality education.

These parameters were measured by a bench of Judges DY Chandrachud and MR Shah in a court ruling on separate petitions filed by two Ladakh students who had been denied admission to MBBS degree courses at medical institutions here despite Union Territory Nomination and Seats alerted by the Center.

“This commitment is significantly greater for students whose backgrounds (due to factors such as caste, class, sexuality, faith, disability, and geographic location) present tremendous barriers in their path to receiving a quality education,” he said.

While granting the petitions of the two students, the Supreme Court ordered that the admission requirements be met as soon as possible, preferably within a week.

The bench observed: that the two petitioners were nominated by the administration of Ladakh for admission to the MBBS degree program through the “central pooling” headquarters of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union.

One was sent to Lady Hardinge Medical College, while the other was assigned to Maulana Azad Medical College, according to the report.

“We have been compelled to take up the case under Article 32 because the basic rights of students in Ladakh to pursue professional studies are at stake,” the statement added.

According to the bank, “We will, of course, address the grievances of both students as part of this decision. However, we are seeking to address the issue on a systematic level so that more students who may lack the means or simply a basic understanding of the legal remedies are not denied an education”

It has been pointed out that RS Suri and KM Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, representing Center and Ladakh, have asserted that as proper credits have also been made to the petitioners, there is really no reason or justification for refuse entry to individuals. According to a notification circulated by the UT administration on February 19 this year, the Director of Health Services of Ladakh (DHSL) has presented a list of recommended candidates from Ladakh to be approved in the central pool medical seats for the year 2020 -2021.

“To alleviate the suffering suffered by these applicants, we further request that all students listed in Annex A of the notification of February 19, 2021, as excerpted here, be admitted to the institutions concerned, if they do not have not already been granted,” he said.

“We are giving such broad guidelines to mitigate the likelihood that each of the similarly qualified children will be told to move this court. Financial hardship should not prevent students from having been admitted in accordance with lawful allowances made in their pursuit under central swimming pool seats” The underlined bench.

The judges used the International Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which was set up to oversee the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which India accepted in 1979.

According to the bench, as part of India’s obligations as a member of the Compact, the Ministry of Health and DHSL must coordinate effectively so that students assigned to colleges under central pool seats do not have difficulty registering once their seats have been legally assigned. He said they could consider creating a nodal officer to ensure that students duly nominated for central pool seats are accepted into their desired field of study.

“Students will not be left behind resulting in unavailability of assistance in gaining legal admission to the relevant course when such an institutional framework is in place. As a direct result, it will make a significant contribution to the negotiated settlement of the most great question, of which the specific scenario is a manifestation.The bench remarked.

Furthermore, the Constitution only guarantees that the state will provide elementary education for adolescents up to the age of 14, with further and post-secondary education dependent on the economic capabilities of the state. The right to education would only make sense if it reached all sectors of the population at all levels; otherwise, it will not meet our Founding Father’s goal of making Indian society an egalitarian society.


“We give these general guidelines to avoid the risk that each of the young people placed in the same situation will have to apply to this Court individually. Financial hardship should not prevent students from receiving admission in accordance with the valid allowances made in their favor under the seats from the central pool,” the bench said.

“This (state) commitment takes on even greater significance for students whose backgrounds (due to characteristics such as caste, class, gender, religion, disability, and geographic location) present huge hurdles in their path to receiving a quality education,” the bench remarked. .


The bench referred to the findings of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was formed in 1979 to oversee India’s ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee has also created “General Comments” which function as an interpretive aid for the many clauses of the Covenant. “Education is the main method by which economically and politically stigmatized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and acquire the methods to participate actively in their coexistence,” writes the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“Comité ICESCR”) in General Comment 13.

Each State Party is required to ensure that management education and training is widely available, and also that higher education is readily applicable to all on the basis of merit, in accordance with Article 26(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is an inescapable reservoir of value. The ICESCR committee highlighted four key elements of education at all levels in its General Comment 13. One of these qualities, for example, is ‘accessibility’. Two of the accessible recommendations of the ICESCR Committee require particular attention.

First, it states that “education shall be accessible to all, in particular to the most vulnerable populations, in law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds”. Second, there is economic connectivity, which requires the State party to take steps to ensure that financial constraints do not prevent students from receiving an education.

The ICESCR Committee rightly observes that differences in spending strategies that result in varying quality of education for people living in different geographical areas can be considered discrimination under the Covenant. Each State Party is required, among other things, to realize the right to education by facilitating and preparing for it. In line with the commitments that India has made as a member of the Pact, Union MHFW and DHSL should coordinate effectively so that students assigned to colleges under central pool seats do not have difficulty in s register once their seats have been legally assigned.

About Homer Yonker

Check Also

“Today is an attack on a law that is being broken”

Frustrated by the growing payments their districts have made to send students to charter schools, …