ORDER :

1. Since the questions raised in all these writ petitions are common, therefore with consent of learned counsels for the parties, these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.

2. As prayed, the facts have been noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8567/2023 and the prayer made therein reads as under :-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :

(i) the impugned guidelines for the academic session 2023-24 be quashed in entirety;

(ii) without prejudice to payer-(i) and in the alternative, the impugned guidelines be quashed to the extent it directs for making admission in more than one entry class under RTE and it should be directed that the admission under RTE should be made only in entry Class of Pre-Primary Level-I (PP3+) and not in every pre-primary classor in Class-I, as the case may be, from the academic session 2023-24.

(iii) without prejudice to prayer -(i) and in the alternative, the impugned guidelines for the academic session 2023-24 be quashed to the extent it provides for no reimbursement to the petitioner with respect to imparting Pre School Education to students admitted under RTE as provided in Clause-10 of Chapter-2-Admission Process;

(iv) without prejudice to prayer-(i) and in the alternative, admission process under the impugned guidelines for the Academic Session 2023-24 be quashed and during the pendency of the writ petition, any admission so allotted by the respondents on the basis of lottery conducted by them in pursuance to the impugned guidelines be quashed and set aside and be held to be invalid and void ab-initio;

(v) any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in favour of the petitioners.”

3. Reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed in CWP-8567/2023 (Neerja Modi School Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) and the learned Advocate General prayed that the reply filed by them in the aforesaid writ petition be considered to be reply in all these writ petitions.

4. Learned Senior Counsel as well as other counsels appearing for the petitioners have no objection to the submission made by the learned Advocate General.

5. In that view of the matter, the oral request made by the learned Advocate General is allowed and the reply filed by the respondents in CWP-8567/2023 (Neerja Modi School Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) is treated to be reply in all these writ petitions.

6. In all these writ petitions the petitioners-institutions have challenged the policy/guidelines issued by the State-respondents for admission in the academic session 2023-24 in private unaided schools under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2009”).

7. Grievance of the petitioners-institutions in all these writ petitions is that the State Government is not competent to issue guidelines contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2009. The petitioners have further mentioned in all these writ petitions that the clause-1 incorporated in the impugned guidelines with regard to multiple entry levels of students is not permissible under the law. Further challenge in these matters is with regard to the clause-10 of the policy/guidelines by which the State Government has directed not to reimburse the expenses incurred by these institutions for admitting the students in pre-primary schools. Further grievance of the petitioners is with regard to not allotting the students in the neighbourhood areas.

8. The clause-1 & 10 of the policy/guidelines are reproduced as under :

01- ,UVªh ysoy d{kk esa izos'k & fu%'kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z cky f'k{kk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2009 ,oa jkT; fu;eksa ds izko/kkuks dh ikyuk esa izR;sd futh fo|ky; dks vius fo|ky; esa lapkfyr leLr