Dismissed¶40

Devansh Yadav v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Kvs & Ors.

Delhi HC25 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/11053/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 11053/2025, Devansh Yadav v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan KVS & Ors., High Court of Delhi, decided 25.02.2026, Jasmeet Singh, J. Subject matter: Class 1 admission under 25% RTE quota, KVS Admission Guidelines 2025-26 Para 4(VII)(C) Part C, 5 km residence radius criterion, PM Shri KV Shahdara, Kendriya Vidyalaya Khichripur building address / pop-up notification irrelevance, OBC certificate format objection, Article 226 writ, schools' autonomy to frame fair and transparent eligibility criteria. Outcome: petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Under paragraph 4(VII)(C) of Part-C of the KVS Admission Guidelines 2025-26, children whose residences do not fall within 5 kms of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara would not be covered under the 25% reservation for RTE. ¶36

Devansh Yadav Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Kvs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to Class 1 at PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara under the 25% RTE quota for the academic session 2025-26, by way of a direction to grant admission on a vacant seat. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner does not fall within the 5 km radius of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara and is accordingly not entitled to the 25% reservation for RTE in terms of the KVS Admission Guidelines 2025-26.

¶37

Key takeaways

It is admitted that the Class 1 students study at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara and not at Khichripur; consequently, the pop-up notification pointing to the Khichripur building has no relevance.ratio¶37
As a settled general proposition, schools have the right to manage and administer their affairs and may lay down their own eligibility criteria, which they may follow so long as the criteria are fair and transparent.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.; order dated 25.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 11053/2025) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 filed by minor Devansh Yadav through his father, seeking admission to Class 1 at PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara on a vacant seat under the 25% RTE quota for academic session 2025-26 (and alternatively on compassionate grounds). Held: under paragraph 4(VII)(C) of Part-C of the KVS Admission Guidelines 2025-26, children whose residences do not fall within 5 kms of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara are not covered by the 25% RTE reservation; the petitioner admittedly did not fall within the 5 km radius of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara, and the pop-up notification showing the school's address at the Kendriya Vidyalaya Khichripur building had no relevance, since Class 1 students admittedly study at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara and not at Khichripur. The Court also observed, as a settled proposition, that schools may lay down their own eligibility criteria provided they are fair and transparent. Petition dismissed; no relief granted; no costs or amounts awarded.

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11053/2025 DEVANSH YADAV .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Harsimran Kaur Rai, Mr. Harpuneet Singh Rai, Mr. Prem Kumar Gautam, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN KVS & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr UN Singh Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R

¶11

% 25.02.2026

¶12

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶13

“a) Issue an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to grant admission on vacant seat to the Petitioner namely Devansh Yadav in Class 1 at PM Shri KV, Shahdara under the RTE quota for the academic session 2025-26.

¶14

b) Issue direction to the Respondent school to accommodate the petitioner’ son on vacant seats on compassionate ground…”

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a minor named Devansh Yadav, who applied through his father for admission in Class 1 under the Right to Education (“ RTE ”) quota. The petitioner applied for three schools namely, PM Shri KV Noida (Shift-II), PM Shri KV

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 11:54:27

¶18

Noida (Shift-I) And PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara.

¶19

Subsequently, the petitioner’s father received telephonic call from PM Shri Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara about petitioner’s selection.

¶20

The petitioner along with his father subsequently attended the interaction but ultimately found that the petitioner was not granted admission, first on the ground that the OBC certificate was not in the prescribed format and then later on the ground that the petitioner does not reside within the prescribed 5 km radius range.

¶21

Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

Ms. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the only reason for the petitioner having been denied admission was that the petitioner did not fall within 5 kms radius of the respondent No. 1 school. She states that as per the pop-up notification of the respondent No. 1 school, the office address of respondent No. 1 is shown as Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara operating in the building of Kendriya Vidyalaya Khichripur, Block No. 6, Khichripur, Delhi – 110091 and the residential address of the petitioner falls within 5 kms of the building of Kendriya Vidyalaya Khichripur, Block No. 6, Khichripur, Delhi – 110091 and hence, the rejection of the admission of the petitioner is incorrect and the petitioner should be granted the seat.

¶23

Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, draws my attention to the Response Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and more particularly paragraph Nos. 2 and 5 of “PARAWISE REPLY”, which read as under ;-

¶24

“2. THAT the contents of Para no. 2 to of the Additional Affidavit filed by petitioner as stated are wrong and denied

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 11:54:27

¶27

except the averments which are matter of record. In response, it is submitted that Petitioner submitted admission Form through online mode with two different Residential address in said online Form. The first one is of Gazipur (his original place) and second one is of Ashok Nagar, Delhi. PM Shri KV Shandara is 12 KM away from his residential address (Ashok Nagar Delhi) which he had given in online form, whereas as per Aerial distance it is 9.5 km from Vidyalaya. In both the cases, residence does not reside within 05 km to KV Shandara which is essential for admission to be covered under 25% reservation for RTE as per Para 4(VII) (C) of Part C of KVS Admission Guidelines 2025-26.

¶28

xxxxxxxx

¶29

5. THAT the contents of Para no. 5 to of the Additional Affidavit filed by petitioner as stated are wrong and denied except the averments which are matter of record. In response, it is submitted that the parents were fully/clearly aware of the school's location as they visited the school many times. The school's premises are at Kendriya Vidyalaya Shandara, G.T. Road, Naveen Shandara, Delhi-110032.

¶30

The parent repeatedly visited the Vidyalaya premises, with visits recorded on 28.03.2025 (Serial No. 89), 02.04.2025 (Serial No. 40, "visited to attend orientation programme") and on 19.04.2025 (Serial No. 30, for "Admission"). Thus, the claim that the parent was unaware of the school's location is factually incorrect and misleading to this Hon'ble

¶31

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 11:54:27

¶32

High Court.

¶33

Further, there is no such provisions of pop up notification of online portal of KVS while filling up admission form by the applicant so the claim made by the applicant is false. Furthermore, the screenshot submitted by the applicant is of the directory of KVs on KVS website, which is nowhere referred as per KVS admission guidelines. The applicant must have visit the Vidyalaya administration to clarify his doubts if any, before submissiom of the admission form. Submission of such false claim reflects the malintention of the petitioner to get backdoor entry anyhow.”

¶34

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶35

The right of the school to manage and administer their affairs has been settled through numerous judgments. The schools are to lay down their own eligibility criteria and can follow the same as long as the same is fair and transparent.

¶36

Under paragraph 4(VII)(C) of Part-C of KVS Admission Guidelines 2025-26, the children whose residences do not fall within 5 kms of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara, would not be covered under 25% reservation for RTE.

¶37

Admittedly, the students in Class 1 are studying at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara and not at Khichripur. The pop-up notification has no relevance since the petitioner does not fall within 5 kms of radius Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shahdara and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to 25% reservation for RTE in terms of KVS Admission Guidelines 2025-26.

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 11:54:27

¶40

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed.

¶41

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶42

FEBRUARY 25, 2026/sp

¶43

Devansh Yadav v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Kvs & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devansh Yadav v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Kvs & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shishupal Chauhan & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Kailash Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S L J Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Himanshita Designer Floors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Sri Venkateswara Diploma in Elementary Education College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kartar Singh Tanwar Vs the Speaker Legislative Assembly Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sonu Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shishupal Chauhan & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Geniemode Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs Priyanka Impex Private Limited & Anr.

Ashish Malik Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajesh Ahuja Vs Delhi Development Authority

Triveni Lal Vs Delhi Development Authority

UOI Vs M/S Rama Construction Company