SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 2201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN BHANSALI, C.J., VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Master Arjeet Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P., Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Basic Education And Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 368 Of 2024
Decided On : 28-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajat Aren.
For the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad, Ramanand Pandey, AC.S.C.

The right to education under the RTE Act does not guarantee admission to a specific school, and residency criteria based on wards must be clarified by the State.

Headnote:(A) Right to Education Act, 2009 - Sections 12 and 15 - Indian Majority Act, 1875 - Admission denial in Pre-Nursery Class - The court held that the appellant-writ petitioner, a minor belonging to a scheduled caste, cannot claim admission as a matter of right to a specific institution based on ward criteria. The learned Single Judge's order to consider the application after evaluating all applications from the relevant ward was upheld. (Paras 12-14)

(B) Admission Criteria - The concept of 'neighbourhood school' does not restrict applications solely to schools within the same ward, but priority may be given to local applicants. The absence of a challenge to the validity of the rules governing admissions limits the court's ability to intervene. (Paras 12-14)

Facts of the case:
The appellant-writ petitioner, a minor born on 23.03.2020, applied for admission to a Pre-Nursery Class in a school located in a different ward than his residence. His application was rejected on the grounds of ward discrepancies.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming that the learned Single Judge's order to consider the application based on available seats was appropriate.

Issues: The main issues included whether admission could be denied based on ward residency and the implications of the RTE Act regarding admission rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the right to education under the RTE Act does not guarantee admission to a specific school and that the rules regarding ward residency must be clarified by the State. The absence of factual foundation regarding available seats limited the court's intervention.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rajat Aren, learned counsel for appellant-writ petitioner, Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Abrar Ahmad, counsel for Respondent No. 5.

2. This intra court appeal is against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 9514 of 2024 (Master Arjeet Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others) whereby though the order dated 26.02.2024 of Block Education Officer, Block-Moradabad, Moradabad denying the admission of the writ petitioner in Pre-Nursery Class in Aryans International School, Plot No. 2 Majholi Road, Budhdhi Vihar, Moradabad for the academic sessions 2024-25 was set aside, however, instead of ordering for admission, a direction was issued to consider the application form of the appellant-writ petitioner in the institution in question after consideration of all the applications of ward no. 16.

3. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner as projected before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant-writ petitioner, Master Arjeet Pratap Singh born on 23.03.2020 is a minor within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 who is the resident of ward no. 15, District-Moradabad. The writ petitioner further claims that he belongs to scheduled caste category and his disabled father’s monthly income is meagre Rs. 6,000/- per month. Armed with the said certificates, the writ petitioner applied for being granted admission in Pre-Nursery in Aryans International School, Moradabad situate at ward no. 16 purported to be under the provisions of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. A lottery for allotment of the school is stated to have been conducted on 26.02.2024 wherein the request of the writ petitioner was not acceded to and the same was rejected with the following remarks:

    “Application rejected by DEO: wrong ward.”

4. Questioning the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Block Education Officer, Block-Moradabad, Moradabad, the writ petitioner preferred Writ-C No. 9514 of 2024 which on contest came to be decided on 02.04.2024 wherein in para 12 to 16, it was observed as under:

    “12. I have carefully perused the documents annexed alongwith this writ petition as well as material placed on record during course of argument and of the considered opinion that petitioner has no fundamental right or an absolute right to get admission under RTE Act in a particular School. The State Government has power to enact rules under Section 38 of RTE Act for carrying out the provisions of this Act. In the present case petitioner has not challenged any rule or circular issued by State of U.P. though it has been argued that no rule or circular could be enacted or issued contrary to parent Act, i.e., RTE Act. In the case in hand, pleadings are deficient that petitioner has not disclosed other Schools available in his neighbourhood, i.e., Schools situated in same Ward or whether he has applied for admission under RTE Act in those neighbourhood schools or not.

    13. In the guidelines dated 25.07.2011 issued by Government of India “neighbourhood school” has been defined as “a school located within the defined limits or area of neighbourhood, as notified by State Government under State RTE Rules”. In said guidelines, it has also been noted that there is no compulsion on the child to seek admission only in the school in his or her neighbourhood, i.e., a child can always apply in other Schools also subject to relevant rules and provisions.

    14. The basic concept of “neighbourhood school” is to accommodate maximum children under RTE Act having residence near to School subject to quota prescribed so that it would be convenient for them for to-and-fro journey, but it does not mean that a student residing far away from School cannot apply as it may be a case that he can manage to-and-fro journey by his/her own means. The concept of neighbourhood school also prescribes that maximum students be accommodated in their neighbourhood schools and for that State Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top