RTE School Admission – Cancellation for Error Aerial
the Petitioner, who is the mother of Krishika, a six year old girl child, has assailed an order dated 14th August 2026 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (R1) whereby the admission of the Petitioner’s daughter granted under the 25% quota for the weaker section and disadvantaged group in the Balmohan Vidyamandir School (R2) has been cancelled on the ground that the distance between the residence of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2-school exceeds the prescribed limit. 3. The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts: 3.1 In accordance with the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“the RTE Act, 2009”), enacted to operationalize the fundamental right to free and compulsory education of children between the age group of 6 to 14 years, and the rules framed thereunder, the Petitioner had filed an application for the admission of the Petitioner’s daughter in a private unaided school. 3.2 The Petitioner’s daughter fulfilled the criteria of a child belonging to a disadvantaged group as she is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Petitioner claimed to have furnished all the necessary particulars and documents in support of the claim for admission. Three preferences were given by the Petitioner. Respondent No.2-school was the third in the order of preferences.
It is in the aforesaid context that, both the Central Rules, 2010, as well as the Maharashtra Rules, 2011, qualify the prescribed limits of area with the expression “as far as possible”. The area prescribed in the Maharashtra Rules, 2011, though cannot be said to be wholly insignificant or irrelevant for the purpose of the obligation of the State under Section 6 or the school under Section 12(1)(c), yet, is required to be appreciated keeping in view of the aforesaid element and necessity of flexibility and the object of admission in a neighbourhood school. 41. A very rigid view of the limits of area to the point that deviation therefrom is impermissible would, in a given case, impinge upon the constitutional right of free and compulsory education. Undoubtedly, the constitutional guarantee is to be enforced in accordance with the law made by the State. However, the prescription as to the area and limits to ascertain what constitutes a neighbourhood school ought to be construed as a mean for achieving the object of securing the right to free and compulsory education to the child and not an end in itself.
Keeping the aforesaid legal and social construct in view, reverting to the facts of the case, it is imperative to note that, the petitioner had not furnished an incorrect address, nor did the petitioner suppress any certificate or document which was required to be submitted alongwith the application. The petitioner had, however, incorrectly mentioned the aerial distance between her place of residence and the Respondent No.2 – school. It could be urged that, lesser distance was deliberately furnished. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that, the petitioner had not made any false or incorrect statement as to her actual residence. The error in furnishing lesser aerial distance could be inadvertent and bona fide as well.
In these circumstances, this Court is persuaded to prioritize the rights of the daughter of the petitioner to have free and compulsory education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India over the considerations of inadvertence on the part of the authorities of the state in initially allotting the Respondent No. 2 – school for the petitioner’s daughter, or for that matter, the error on the part of the petitioner in furnishing an incorrect aerial distance between the petitioner’s residence and Respondent No.2 – school.
