The Allahabad High Court while disposing the petition held that a child has a fundamental right to get admission in any neighbourhood school and he cannot be compelled to seek admission in any other School of not his choice either situated in his neighbourhood or his right to get admission in a School situated in his neighbourhood but in different Ward cannot be denied and any such reason is unsustainable being arbitrary and contrary to provisions of RTE Act and notifications issued.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Master Arjeet Pratap Singh.
Petitioner, a minor boy, has approached the Court through his natural guardian (mother) being aggrieved that his application for admission under 25% quota reserved for disadvantaged group in Pre-Nursery Class of Aryans International School, Majholi Road, Budhdhi Vihar, Moradabad in Academic Session 2024-25, was rejected by Block Education Officer, Block Moradabad on a ground being “wrong Ward”.
The petitioner has claimed that he is a resident of Ward No 15 in District Moradabad, whereas the above referred School is situated in Ward No 16. The rejection of application appears to be on ground that children belonging to a particular Ward, would apply only to the neighbourhood Schools situated in that Ward and an application of a child belonging to different Ward, will not be considered.
Rajat Aren, counsel for petitioner, has vehemently urged that the reason assigned for rejection of application, i.e, “wrong Ward”, is absolutely erroneous and contrary to various provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) as well as relevant Rules, circulars and clarifications issued by Government of India and State of Uttar Pradesh especially with regard to issue of “neighbourhood school”.
It is further submitted by the counsel for petitioner that concerned School is situated within a close proximity of residence of petitioner, therefore, it would fall within the parameters of a “neighbourhood school” and as such the application form was wrongly rejected on ground that petitioner belongs to a different Ward.
Counsel for petitioner has referred to various provisions of RTE Act, guidelines dated 25.07.2011 issued by Government of India under Section 35(1) of RTE Act as well as amendment carried out by State of U.P. by circular dated 11.05.2016 in Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, in order to give force to his submission that it is a fundamental right of a child, who belongs to disadvantaged group to get admission under the provision of RTE Act to any School situated in his/her neighbourhood. No distinction could be made on the basis of residence in a particular Ward or that a “neighbourhood school” is situated in a different Ward.
Per contra, Abrar Ahmad, Advocate for Union of India and Ms Shruti Malviya, Brief Holder of State-Respondents, submitted that a priority has been given to applicants who belongs to same Ward for admission under RTE Act in concerned School and placed a document issued by concerned School as forwarded by Block Education Officer that all the students selected for admission in concerned School (situated in Ward No 16) belongs to same Ward only.
They further submitted that there is no arbitrariness in selection. Petitioner may have a right to get admission in a neighbourhood school subject to conditions of lottery etc. but he has no absolute right to get admission in a particular neighbourhood school situated in a different Ward though it may be a “neighbourhood school”. Petitioner has not disclosed about numbers of neighbourhood schools situated in his Ward, i.e, Ward No 15.
The Court observed that,
In Sudheer Kumar (supra) a Coordinate Bench has also observed that it would be open to concerned Schools to take admission of such students who reside within neighbourhood distance and thereafter for vacant seats it may consider the students beyond its neighbourhood.
I have carefully perused the documents annexed along with the 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 case petitioner has not challenged any rule or circular issued by the 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 the same Ward or whether he has applied for admission under RTE Act in those neighbourhood schools or not.
The Court further observed that,
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.
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 has also enacted rules and issued circulars/ guidelines also. I do not find any specific provision with regard to criteria of admission on the basis of “Ward of residence of a student” and “Ward in which neighbourhood school is situated”.
The above provision provides that the ‘Ward’ would also be a relevant factor. However, there is no clarity on the issue, whether application of a student having residence in another Ward can be rejected at threshold on that ground alone though concerned School is a neighbourhood school. There is no doubt that priority could be given to students of the same Ward and applications of students of different Ward could be considered later on subject to availability of seats as per quota prescribed under RTE Act. The word ‘Ward’ mentioned in above referred amendment is in relation to establishment of School in a Ward and not related to a condition to apply only neighbourhood schools situated at the same Ward.
“In aforesaid circumstances, since there is no specific clarity that application form of a student residing in different Ward could be rejected at the threshold, therefore, order impugned in this writ petition cannot survive and the same is hereby set aside. Concerned respondents are directed to consider the application form of petitioner, if in concerned School, after consideration of all applications of said Ward (Ward No 16) seats are still available before completion of admission process. In case the admission process has already been concluded, the petitioner will have liberty to try his luck in the next academic session”, the Court also observed while disposing the petition.