The Supreme Court has held that once the State Government completes the admission process under the RTE framework and forwards the list of selected students to a neighbourhood school, the school has no option but to grant admission to such students, and it cannot refuse admission on the ground of its own doubt regarding eligibility or sit in appeal over the Government’s decision.
The Court also held that although a school may submit a representation to the competent authority if it disputes the Government’s selection, however, such representation does not suspend its obligation to admit the child immediately. The binding nature of Rule 8 and the constitutional object of Article 21A require prompt admission so that the child’s right to education is not defeated by delay.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court considered the constitutional obligation under Article 21A, the statutory mandate under Section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and Rule 8 of the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011, and affirmed the High Court’s direction to grant admission without delay.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe reiterated that a neighbourhood school has a constitutional and statutory obligation to grant admission, without delay, to students forwarded by the State Government, and held that this obligation is consistent with Article 21A, Section 12 of the RTE Act, 2009, and Rule 8 of the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011.
The Bench observed that the right to education under Article 21A would remain an empty promise unless the mandate of the RTE Act, 2009 is implemented in its letter and spirit. It noted that Rule 8 makes the admission process transparent, requires reasons to be given in writing where admission is denied, and binds the school to follow the process of admission prescribed by the State Government from time to time.
The Bench emphasized that the neighbourhood school model under Section 12 is intended to operationalise equality of status and social integration by requiring admission of children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups to the extent of at least twenty-five percent of class strength. It described this statutory policy as transformative and as a substantive measure to secure the constitutional objective of equality of status.
Further, the Bench observed that the right to elementary education carries co-relative duties and identifies five duty bearers: the appropriate Government, the local authority, the neighbourhood schools, the parents/guardians, and the elementary school teachers. Among these, the Bench highlighted the important role of neighbourhood schools in ensuring effective implementation of Section 12.
The Bench also observed that if a school has any disagreement with the Government’s selection, it may make a representation to the concerned authority, but it cannot await the outcome of such representation and must grant admission in the interregnum to the student whose name appears in the forwarded list. The Bench treated this immediacy as essential to actualise the promise of Article 21A.
Briefly, the respondent student applied to the Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh, for admission to the pre-primary class in a neighbourhood school for the academic year 2024–25 under the procedure prescribed by the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. Her name was duly included in the published selection list and the list was forwarded to the petitioner school for admission.
After allotment, the student approached the petitioner school to complete admission formalities, but the school neither granted admission nor allowed her to attend classes on the ground that there was uncertainty regarding her eligibility. The student therefore filed a writ seeking directions for admission, and the High Court allowed the petition holding that the school could not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the State Government.
Appearances:
AOR Vivek Singh and Advocate Saumya Sarasawat, for the Appellant
NA, for the Respondent
