Allowed

Mohammad Sarfaraj Minor Thru. His Father Ajaj Ahmad and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024WRIC/8316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, poor students allotted schools under the RTE Act, were denied admission as their ward fell outside the 'neighbourhood'. Court held the government order cannot override Article 21-A and the RTE Act and directed admission in a neighbourhood school from the 2025-26 academic session.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant all petitioners admission to a school in their neighbourhood from academic session 2025-26; respondent No.3 to decide petitioners' choice of schools in accordance with la

Mohammad Sarfaraj Minor Thru. His Father Ajaj… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83637

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8316 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mohammad Sarfaraj Minor Thru. His Father Ajaj Ahmad And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra Singh Rajawat

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Application of Amendment No. NIL of 2024 filed by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record.

¶7

Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment, the same is allowed.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary amendment during the course of day.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

¶10

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief(s):

¶11

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to take admission of the petitioners being eligible students as their names were allocated by them in their respective schools forthwith or as per direction of this Hon'ble Court and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus parties thereby directing the opposite to take appropriate decision on the representation dated 07.09.2024 of the petitioners pending before them in the interest of justice. (Annexure No.4)"

¶12

It is stated that the petitioners come from humble background and are poor and they applied for their admission under the the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTE Act') which guarantees free and compulsory education. It is claimed that the names of the petitioners found favour and they were allotted school. It is stated that although, the petitioners were allotted the school (as per Annexure No.2), subsequently, an order was passed by the Basic Education Department holding that the petitioner are ineligible as they were staying in a separate ward which does not fall within the definition of 'neighbourhood. The contention of the petitioners is that once they have been allotted the school

¶13

based upon the address, they could not have been denied the admission. It is argued that in the alternative, in any case, the burden of discharging the application under the RTE Act is upon the State and the State ought to have allotted another school or at least ought to have given an option of making an alternative selection of the petitioners which have not been done.

¶14

The reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Miesha (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others, WRIT - C No. 6121 of 2024 (Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50504) & Master Arjeet Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. And 4 Others , WRIT - C No. 9514 of 2024 (Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65515). In terms of Government Order dated 20.01.2013, it is incumbent that the school should be in the neighbourhood, however, the said government order cannot override the statutory and the constitutional provisions under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India as well as under the RTE Act and it is the duty of the respondents to ensure that the children are educated and are given free and compulsory education, it has not been done in the present case.

¶15

In view thereof, the petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure that all the petitioners are granted admission to the school in the neighbourhood where they are living in the next academic session starting w.e.f. year 2025 . The respondent No. 3 shall ensure that the petitioners are given admission in the school in the neighbourhood. I am casting the burden on the respondent No. 3 for the reason that the petitioners belong to a very poor background and are not educated enough.

¶16

The petitioners cannot be permitted to get admission in the academic session 2024-25 as unfortunately on account of pendency of the present petition, substantial part of the academic session has already come to an end. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate application giving choice of the schools in which they are desirous of getting admission for Session 2025-26, which shall be considered and decided by the respondent No. 3 in accordance with law.

¶17

The petition stands allowed to that extent.

¶18

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 13.12.2024/(Manoj K.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Sarfaraj Minor Thru. His Father Ajaj Ahmad and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sarfaraj Minor Thru. His Father Ajaj Ahmad and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs Addl.District Judge 14 Lucknow and Ors.

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs Learned A.D.J. and S.J/ Special Judge Lucknow and Ors.

Raghunath @ Raghunath Prasad Yadav Vs Civil Judge S.D. Court No. 22 Lucknow and Ors.

Smt. Neelam Chaudhary and Another vs Debts Recovery Tribunal 600/1 University Road Hanuman Setu Temple Lko and 4 Others

Bhavna Sony vs Vivek Rastogi

Prem Chandra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.