1. Challenge to state guidelines restricting RTE Act Section 12(1)(c) admissions to Class I, excluding pre-school entry levels. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 21 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 741
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, A.C.J., Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J.
Rukmani Birla Modern High School - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, To The Government, Department Of School Education - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 738 of 2023 , D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7361 of 2020, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9887 of 2020, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 103 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 390 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 391 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 392 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 393 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 394 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 396 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 397 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 400 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 401 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 402 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 403 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 414 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 506 of 2024, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 684 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 769 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 770 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 782 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 783 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 785 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 786 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 787 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 788 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 789 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 790 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 791 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 792 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 794 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 795 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 796 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 797 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 798 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 799 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 801 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 802 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 803 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 804 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 805 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 806 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 807 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 861 of 2023, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 863 of 2023
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, AAG with Mr. Divyanshu Gupta, AGC, Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, Mr. Anshuman Singh, Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar, Ms. Palak Saxena, Ms. Pratik Jain, Mr. Ashish Kabra with, Mr. Keshav Parashar for, Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, Ms. Riddhi Chandrawat, Mr. Sarthak Saxena, Mr. Avik Rajoria, Dr. Abhinav Sharma with Ms. Puja Sharma, Mr. Akshaya Sharma and, Mr. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Vikas Jakhar, Mr. Siddharth Bapna and, Ms. Meyhul Mittal
For the Respondent: Mr. Devesh Yadav, CGC with Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari for Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG, Ms. Abhinav Sharma, Ms. Gauri Jasana for, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Mr. Siddharth Bapna , Ms. Meyhul Mittal, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Tanushka Saxena, Dr. Abhinav Sharma with, Ms. Puja Sharma, Mr. Akshaya Sharma and, Mr. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Yadav
For the Appellant : Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, AAG with Mr. Divyanshu Gupta, AGC, Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, Mr. Anshuman Singh, Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar, Ms. Palak Saxena, Ms. Pratik Jain, Mr. Ashish Kabra with, Mr. Keshav Parashar for, Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, Ms. Riddhi Chandrawat, Mr. Sarthak Saxena, Mr. Avik Rajoria, Dr. Abhinav Sharma with Ms. Puja Sharma, Mr. Akshaya Sharma and, Mr. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Vikas Jakhar, Mr. Siddharth Bapna and, Ms. Meyhul Mittal
For the Respondent: Mr. Devesh Yadav, CGC with Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari for Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG, Ms. Abhinav Sharma, Ms. Gauri Jasana for, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Mr. Siddharth Bapna , Ms. Meyhul Mittal, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Tanushka Saxena, Dr. Abhinav Sharma with, Ms. Puja Sharma, Mr. Akshaya Sharma and, Mr. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Yadav
Schools imparting pre-school education must reserve 25% of seats for marginalized and weaker sections at the initial entry level and maintain this 25% ratio through Class I to ensure equitable access and prevent educational disadvantages for under-privileged children.
Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Sections 2(f), 2(n), 11, 12(1)(c) and 38 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21A - Interpretation of reservation mandate for marginalized sections - Where a school imparts pre-school education, the 25% reservation requirement under Section 12(1)(c) applies to such pre-school education in addition to Class I - The phrase “provided further” in the proviso to Section 12(1)(c) is to be read as being “in furtherance” of the main objective of the Act rather than as an exception (Paras 35, 36, 37).
(B) Right to Education - Inclusive interpretation - The right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A should be read inclusively to include pre-primary education - Depriving marginalized children of pre-primary education creates an unfair disadvantage compared to privileged children at the time of entry into Class I, thereby defeating the objective of social inclusion (Paras 39, 42, 45).
Facts of the case:
A public interest litigation was filed challenging state guidelines that restricted admissions under the Right to Education Act exclusively to Class I, thereby forbidding admissions at pre-primary levels for children belonging to weaker sections. Simultaneously, several schools challenged a judgment by a single judge which required them to provide 25% reservation at both the pre-school entry level and at Class I level.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the state government is competent to monitor admissions but cannot issue guidelines that absolve schools of their statutory obligation to provide 25% reservation at the pre-school level if such education is imparted. The court found that a restrictive approach denying pre-primary access to marginalized children is contrary to the legislative intent of the Act.
Issues: Whether the state government can restrict entry-level admissions under the RTE Act exclusively to Class I when schools offer pre-school education, and whether such schools are required to provide 25% reservation at both the pre-school entry level and the Class I level.
Ratio Decidendi: A combined reading of Section 11 and the proviso to Section 12(1)(c) indicates that the 25% reservation mandate extends to pre-school education to ensure that children from marginalized sections are not disadvantaged. The goal is to maintain a consistent 25% ratio of marginalized students throughout the elementary education span. If students are admitted at the pre-school level, the school need not admit a separate 25% at Class I unless the total strength of marginalized students falls below the 25% threshold at that stage (Paras 43, 44).
Result: Special appeals dismissed and the public interest litigation disposed of with directions to schools to maintain 25% reservation at pre-school stages.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- education law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Schools argue RTE Act mandates admission only at Class I; petitioners contend state lacks authority to restrict entry levels, requiring 25% reservation at all pre-school levels. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 25 , 26 )
3. Proviso to Section 12(1)(c) extends RTE obligations to pre-school education; state guidelines restricting entry levels are unsustainable; schools must maintain 25% quota at each entry level. (Para 30 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 43 )
4. Under Section 12(1)(c) read with its proviso, schools imparting pre-school education must reserve 25% seats for weaker sections at each entry level, including pre-school and Class I. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 )
5. Special appeals dismissed; PIL disposed with directions to maintain 25% reservation at pre-school levels (PP1, PP2, PP3) and Class I, with state issuing appropriate guidelines. (Para 44 , 46 , 47 )
6. Does Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act apply to pre-school education?
Yes, the proviso extends the obligation to schools imparting pre-school education, requiring 25% reservation for weaker sections at pre-school entry levels. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
7. Can a state government restrict RTE admissions to Class I only?
No, the state cannot restrict entry levels; it must ensure 25% reservation at each entry level, including pre-school, to fulfill the RTE Act's purpose. (Para 32 , 40 , 41 , 42 )
8. Are schools required to maintain 25% reservation at both pre-school and Class I entry levels?
Yes, schools must maintain 25% reservation at each entry level where students are admitted, ensuring the quota continues through elementary education. (Para 38 , 43 , 44 )
9. Does the state government have power to issue guidelines on entry levels under Section 38 of the RTE Act?
No, Section 38 does not include entry-level prescription; state guidelines beyond the Act are ultra vires and unlawful. (Para 10 , 11 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, A.C.J.
1. Application seeking leave to file appeal, filed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.103/2024, is allowed.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in DB SAW Nos.103/2024, 390/2024, 391/2024, 392/2024, 393/2024, 394/2024, 396/2024, 402/2024, 403/2024 and 414/2024, the same are allowed. Delay in filing the said appeals is hereby, condoned.
3. The present bunch of cases have a common link, hence, were heard together.
4. While D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) Nos.7361/2020 and 9887/2020 have been filed by the Societies, espousing the cause of implementation of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as 'RTE Act') and associated with the education of downtrodden class of children, and also challenges the authority of the State Government to set out guidelines beyond what the parent Act has authorized and prays to declare the act of the State Government in issuing such guidelines unconstitutional.
5. The other set of special appeals filed by the State Government and various Schools, challenges the judgment dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, he partly allowed the writ petitions, holding the State Government entitled to admit students to the institution at two levels, namely, Nursery/PP3+ at Pre School Education as well as Class-I for Elementary Education and further holding that for the institutions which are providing education at both levels, namely, Pre School Education and Elementary Education, there should be two entry levels.
6. It would be appropriate to first take up the matter relating to the PIL.
7. As per the case set up by the petitioner in the PIL petition No.7361/2020, the petitioner is a Society working for implementation of Article 21A of the Constitution of India and the RTE Act. It has been the concern of the Society to see that the RTE Act is implemented in its true form.
8. It is stated that the RTE Act rephrases the provisions of Article 21A of the Constitution which is a fundamental right. It was urged by the petitioner that the State Government had issued guidelines for the Academic Session 2020-21 which restricted the application of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act to Class I only and had altogether forbidden the admission at Pre Primary Levels resulting in a situation where the unaided non-minority schools had been allowed to admit children at the Pre School Education Level upon payment of fees while the children belonging to the weaker sections and disadvantageous groups would be denied admission at the Pre School Admission Level.
9. Written arguments have been submitted on behalf of the petitioner in PIL Petition No.7361/2020 and it is stated that the State Government has no legal competence to make Rules on the subject of 'Entry Level' under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. In pursuance of the Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the RTE Act, read with Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, the children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups are accorded with the right to free and compulsory education in unaided non-minority private schools. The appropriate Government, i.e., the State Government in the present case, has been given limited powers to issue guidelines for the implementation of the RTE Act, which it has been issuing every year since 2014. The State Government has no authority to set out guidelines beyond what the parent Act (RTE Act in the present case) has authorized.
10. It is further submitted that a plain reading of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act indicates that no rule-making power has been conferred upon the State Government by the Parliament. Consequently, any rule framed by the State Government on the subject would be ultra vires and invalid in law for want of authority under the parent statute. Furthermore, the RTE Act expressly provides rule-making powers only under Section 38, which enumerates an exhaust
