Shivam (Minor) Thru. His Guardian Sri Om Prakash Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education, and 4 Others

Heard, Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kamini Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, a minor aged about 11 years, through his father. The petitioner alleges that he was desirous of obtaining admission with the respondent no. 5. However, despite the petitioner qualifying, he was denied admission solely on the basis of a medical examination for age, which found his age to be around 14-15 years.

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the birth certificate issued by the State of U.P. (Annexure No. 3), the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.2013. Even in the mark sheet issued from the school where the petitioner was studying prior to applying for admission with the respondent no. 5, the date of birth has been shown as 01.07.2013. However, when the petitioner was granted admission, the Principal expressed an apprehension that the child's appearance did not match the age disclosed. Consequently, directions were issued for a medical examination to determine the petitioner's age. A medical examination was conducted, and it was found that the age of the petitioner was 14-15 years (Annexure No. 9).

¶12

It is argued that the brochure issued for the academic year 2024 stated that children born between 01.05.2012 and 31.07.2014 (both dates inclusive) would be considered for admission. It was also stated that in case of any doubt regarding the age recorded in a certificate, the same could be referred to a Medical Board for confirmation, and the decision of the Medical Board would be treated as final. According to the petitioner, he fell within the age prescribed for admission in the brochure. According to the respondent, it was open to them to get the age medically verified as per the brochure.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009), and the particular Section 14 of the Act, which is quoted here-in-below.:

¶14

"14. Proof of age for admission. — (1) For the purposes of admission to elementary

¶15

WRIC No. 4738 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

education, the age of a child shall be determined on the basis of the birth certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 (6 of 1886) or on the basis of such other document, as may be prescribed.

¶18

(2) No child shall be denied admission in a school for lack of age proof."

¶19

On the basis of this provision, it is argued that once the birth certificate was produced, it was not open to the respondent to have a medical verification done. It is further argued that the medical verification was not done in accordance with the law.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that since the brochure itself prescribed that in case of any doubt regarding age, a medical examination could be conducted, and the petitioner applied in terms of that brochure, it is not open to the petitioner to subsequently argue that the terms of the brochure are not to be followed. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Writ-C No. 36343 of 2022, [Km. Sakshi (Minor) Vs. Government of India and Others], decided on 12.03.2022. In that case, relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Principal Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and Another Vs. Abhay Chaudhary (minor) and Another (Special Appeal No. 50 of 2016), the writ petition was dismissed, holding that once the medical report was available and the brochure prescribed the same, it would be final. However, in the said case, the effect of Section 14 of the RTE Act was not considered, as such can not be accepted as a precedent.

¶21

The RTE Act, 2009 was enacted for the furtherance of the mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India for providing free and compulsory education to children. The prescriptions regarding age are prescribed in Section 14 quoted here-in-above. Once the birth certificate was available, the prescription in the brochure for the constitution of a Medical Board cannot prevail over the Central Act i.e. RTE Act, 2009.

¶22

In view thereof, I have no hesitation in holding that the denial of admission based upon the report of the Medical Board is clearly contrary to Section 14 of the RTE Act and, therefore, cannot be sustained. As the petitioner was denied admission despite being eligible, the respondent no. 5 is directed to admit the petitioner for the subsequent academic year, i.e., the academic year 2025-26, in the class in which he is entitled to be admitted.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

¶24

September 18, 2025 Haseen U.

¶25

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶26

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

Shivam (Minor) Thru. His Guardian Sri Om Prakash Yadav v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam (Minor) Thru. His Guardian Sri Om Prakash Yadav v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Happu Verma Alias Kamta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Angel Suresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Medical Education Lko. and Another

Mayur Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Shri Nath Baba College of Pharmacy, Balia Thru. Authorized Signatory Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Director Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Rahman Khera Lucknow Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal II U.P. LUCKNOWand Anr.

Asif Khaliq and 2 Others Vs Branch Manager Bank of Baroda Branch Motinagar Distt. Unnao and 5 Others