MASTER DAIVIK RANGWANI S/O SHRI TARUN RANGWANI vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 21-A, 51-A(k) - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Sections 12(1)(c), 35(1) - Rajasthan Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 26 - Right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21-A; the Act of 2009 mandates 25% reservation for economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in private schools. Procedural technicalities cannot override the substantive fundamental right.

(B) The concept of neighbourhood school under the Act is relevant for establishing schools by the appropriate government; unaided private schools have an independent obligation under Section 12(1)(c) and cannot deny admission solely on the ground that the child resides in a different ward.

(C) Where the school or authority has extended the deadline for document verification, any corrected document submitted within that extended period must be considered; rejection based on a technical omission (e.g., missing ward number on Aadhar card) when the correct document is later furnished is unjustified.

(D) The right to education under Article 21-A and the Act cannot be curtailed on account of technicalities or procedural irregularities; a fundamental right unequivocally accruing in favour of a citizen cannot be defeated by mere procedural grounds.

Facts of the case:
The minor petitioner, through his father, applied for admission under the Right to Education Act to a private school (respondent no.4). The application was rejected because the Aadhar card did not mention the ward number of residence. The authorities extended the date for document verification till 08.05.2025. On that date, the petitioner submitted a certificate (Appendix-5) from a competent authority showing his ward number. Despite this, the respondents did not consider the corrected document and maintained the rejection. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions for admission.

Findings of Court:
The court found that once the date for verification was extended, the respondents were obliged to consider the correct document submitted on 08.05.2025. Relying on the Allahabad High Court decision (Sudheer Kumar) and Delhi High Court decision (Jiya), the court held that the neighbourhood school concept does not permit denial of admission based on ward residence, and that a child’s fundamental right to education cannot be defeated by technicalities. The respondents’ action was unjustified and not tenable.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the ground that his Aadhar card did not mention the ward number is valid when a corrected document was submitted within the extended verification period? (ii) Whether procedural technicalities can override the fundamental right to education under Article 21-A?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to education under Article 21-A and the RTE Act is a fundamental right; procedural grounds or technical irregularities cannot be used to deny admission. When an extended timeline for document submission is provided, the authorities must consider documents filed within that period. The concept of neighbourhood school does not justify rejection based on ward number, especially when the school has not filled its 25% quota. The school and state authorities are bound to act in furtherance of the right to education, not to defeat it on technicalities.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to admit the petitioner to respondent no.4 private school within 15 days from receipt of certified copy of the order. Stay application and pending applications disposed of.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Writ petition to enforce right to education under Article 21-A – Admission under RTE Act – Rejection for defective document. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner argues correction of document within extended time; respondents argue strict adherence to timeline and guidelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Writ allowed – Respondents directed to admit petitioner under RTE Act within 15 days. (Para 13 , 14 )

4. Can a child's fundamental right to education under Article 21-A and the RTE Act be defeated by a procedural technicality in document verification?

No. Once the child is selected in the lottery and corrects the defect within an extended period, rejection on a technical ground is unjustified as the right cannot be curtailed on procedural irregularities. (Para 9 , 12 )

5. Does the concept of 'neighbourhood school' based on ward residence restrict a child's right to admission under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act?

No. The right is independent of ward boundaries; unaided schools must admit children from any neighbourhood, and preference based on distance is permissible only if seats are limited. (Para 10 )

6. What is the scope of the right to education under Article 21-A in relation to admission to a specific school?

Article 21-A guarantees free and compulsory education but not a right to a particular school; such right arises only when the child is shortlisted in the lottery conducted by the education department. (Para 11 )

Order

Reportable

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:-

INDEX

(1) Preface ……………..………………….……….…………….………...……2

(2) Facts of the case….………….…………………………….………………4

(3) Contentions of the petitioner…..………………..……….…………..5

(4) Contention of the respondents..……….……………………….…….6

(5) Analysis, Discussions & Findings…………….……………………….7

(6) Conclusion & Directions……..……………………………..………….12

Preface:-

Right to Education should help the student, not only to develop his capacities but also to understand his own highest interest.

a. The Right to Education falls under the hallowed walls of the fundamental right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution because education ensure a good and dignified life.

b. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in 1993 (1) SCC 645 has held that Right to Education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for the children up to the age of fourteen years. Beyond the age of fourteen years, the Right to Education becomes subordinate to the economic means of the State and its development. The Directive Principles of State Policy under Articles 41, 45 & 46 were used to define the parameters of the fundamental Right to Education.

c. To give better effect to the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishna (supra), the Legislature passed the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 (w.e.f. 12.12.2002) which inserted Article 21-A under Part-III of the Constitution of India envisaging the fundamental right to free and compulsory Education for children between the age group of Six to Fourteen years. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India has hailed as the most significant of all the fundamental rights, because one’s ability to enforce the fundamental right comes from his education.

d. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 also inserted clause (k) to Article 51-A of the Constitution of India envisaging the fundamental duty of a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward, between the age group of 6 to 14 years. This has added to encourage and promote the parents and the guardians to bring their children or wards to school for education.

e. In the International sphere, various treaties including Covenants, Conventions, Charters, Declaration, Recommendation, etc. have recognized the Right to Education.

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (for short, “the UDHR”) declares that everyone has the right to education and with the adoption of the UDHR, many international and regional treaties came into place to reaffirm the solemn Right to Education.

f. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, “the Act of 2009”) is an important legislation that marks a watershed in the education system in India. With its enactment, the Right to Education has become a fundamental right in the country. When the Act of 2009 came into force in 2010, India has become one amongst the 135 countries where education is a fundamental right of every child.

g. The RTE Act mandates for all private schools to reserve 25% of their seats for children from socially disadvantaged and economically backward sections. This move is intended to boost social inclusion and pave the way for a more just and equal country. This provision is included in Section 12(1) (c) of the RTE Act. All schools (private, unaided, aided or special category) must reserve 25% of their seats at the entry level for students from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups. This provision is a far-reaching move and perhaps the most important step in so far as the inclusive education is concerned.

Facts of the case:-

1. The young minor petitioner through his natural guardian father has knocked the doors of this temple of justice to enforce his right to education, as guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14904

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
MASTER DAIVIK RANGWANI S/O SHRI TARUN RANGWANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 8802 / 2025

The right to education under Article 21-A cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities; schools must consider corrected documents submitted within extended deadlines.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a child's fundamental right to education under Article 21-A and the RTE Act be defeated by a procedural technicality in document verification?

5. Does the concept of 'neighbourhood school' based on ward residence restrict a child's right to admission under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act?

6. What is the scope of the right to education under Article 21-A in relation to admission to a specific school?

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14904

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)ANOOP KUMAR DHANDMASTER DAIVIK RANGWANI S/O SHRI TARUN RANGWANI – AppellantVersusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN – RespondentCW / 8802 / 2025

The right to education under Article 21-A cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities; schools must consider corrected documents submitted within extended deadlines.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a child's fundamental right to education under Article 21-A and the RTE Act be defeated by a procedural technicality in document verification?

5. Does the concept of 'neighbourhood school' based on ward residence restrict a child's right to admission under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act?

6. What is the scope of the right to education under Article 21-A in relation to admission to a specific school?

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
MASTER DAIVIK RANGWANI S/O SHRI TARUN RANGWANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 8802 / 2025