The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act mandates that private unaided schools comply with all provisions of the Act, including maintaining educational standards and ensuring opportunities for re-examination.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri P. K. Sinha the counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are two in number through their father and natural guardian, stating that the petitioner no.1 aged about 11 years is studying at the respondent no.4 school, in Class V and the petitioner no.2 who is aged about 14 years is studying in Class IX. It is stated that both the children are outstanding sportsman and besides pursuing their studies with the respondent no.4 are also pursuing the skills in cricket and they have joined a Cricket Academy at Lucknow. It is stated that, although the petitioners have never been detained in past, have now been detained in the examination held for the session 2024-2025, in respect of the petitioner no.1 and vide progress report of the petitioner no.2 for the examination 2024-2025.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the prescriptions contained in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as 'RTE Act'), the detention of the petitioner no.1 as well as the petitioner no.2 is contrary to the prescriptions contained in the RTE Act and also violates their rights under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the respondents authorities were unhappy with the petitioners as, they were pursuing their hobby in Cricket and on account of the said grievance, they are not being permitted to undergo examination afresh, even if the respondent no.4 was of the view that, the petitioners needed improvement in their academic performance they ought to have been given a chance to appear in re- examination. It is further argued that the detention of the petitioners was contrary to the prescriptions contained in the RTE Act.

4. The respondent no 4 school has filed counter affidavit stating that although the petitioners have a right of free and compulsory education, guaranteed by Article 21-A read with the Act, however, it is emphasized that both the students were not having the requisite attendance and also did not qualify the examination and not detaining, students similar to the petitioners, affects the academic schedule and reputation of the school in question. It is further argued that, in terms of the prescriptions contained under the Act in question, the respondents, being unaided private school, are not amenable to all the provisions of the RTE Act and their obligations in terms of the Act, is confined only to the prescriptions contained under section 12 of the Act. It is further argued that Section 16 of the Act cannot be interpreted to apply to the general students in the same fashion as to the students who get benefits of Section 12 (1)(c) so as to reduce their competence and excellence by giving them freedom of not to work towards excellence, not to learn, become ruffians of the school so as to disturb the entire atmosphere of the school in question. It is further argued that if, the school is not allowed to fail/detain students, the teachers would also stop paying attention to the children and in that case, even the teachers cannot be evaluated by the Management appropriately. In the light of the said, it is argued that both the petitioners, do not have the necessary minimum attendance also.

5. With regard to the petitioner no.1, it is stated that he had secured only 41.67% marks and the student's attendance was 57.8% and despite being made aware that 75% attendance is compulsory, he did not take any steps for avoiding the shortage of attendance while the student was i