Writ petition seeking admission for a Class I student under Section 12(1)(C) of RTE Act. Court found the ward number error intentional for priority gain, dismissing the plea as malafide.
Prayer to direct school and authorities to admit petitioner dismissed. Stay petition and pending applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:38457]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8262/2023
Aaradhya Bhati D/o Sunil Bhati, Aged About 4 Years, Through Her Guardian Father Sunil Bhati S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged 30 Years, R/o Ship House, Sargara Colony, 1St Street, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Hapu Ram |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with |
| Mr. Deepak Chandak | |
| Mr. D.L.R. Vyas |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
07/11/2023
However, when she reported to the allotted school, the father of the petitioner was called upon to file the certificate as
[2023:RJ-JD:38457]
[CW-8262/2023]
(2 of 5)
mentioned in appendix-5. It is then that the father of the petitioner became aware of the fact that wrong ward number had been mentioned in the application form. Therefore, an attempt to amend the application form and to upload the certificate issued by the counsellor in the prescribed format was made, but the same could not be uploaded. Hence, the petitioner approached the concerned Authorities but the application dated 26.05.2023 was not accepted and hence, the present writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to direct the respondent School as well as the State Authorities to admit the petitioner in Class I in respondent No.5 School.
It has further been submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner belonged to ward No.48, then also she has a right to be admitted because more than 10 students of the adjoining ward as well as the other wards have been admitted in the concerned school.
[2023:RJ-JD:38457]
[CW-8262/2023]
(3 of 5)
application form. The same has been done because of the simple fact that the student belonging to the same ward as of the school, was to be given priority in admission. The petitioner, intentionally, to attain the said priority filled in incorrect information.
It has further been submitted that as soon as the said fact came into knowledge on the verification of the documents by the concerned school, the application of the applicant was rejected and it is only thereafter, that attempt to upload the document or to amend the ward number has been made.
It has further been submitted that the applicant has attained priority qua four other schools also but no attempt to get admission in those schools seems to have been made. Counsel submitted that the attempt as made by the petitioner, if not curtailed at this stage, would lead to a number of similar litigations wherein, after providing the incorrect information intentionally, indulgence would be prayed for, on the ground of bonafide error.
(4 of 5) [CW-8262/2023]
[2023:RJ-JD:38457]
students residing in the same ward as that of the school. The second priority was to be given to the students of adjoining/catchment areas and lastly, to those of the other areas.
The averment as made by learned counsel for the petitioner that incorrect mentioning of the ward was a bonafide error does not find any justification as the attempt, if any, to correct the same was made for the first time, only after 23rd May 2023 i.e. the reporting date. The result of the concerned school (Annex.R/1-3) specifies the name of the petitioner at serial No.1 and the catchment area as mentioned is 'same ward'. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was very well aware of the fact that she, in spite of not belonging to the same ward, was given priority at No.1 qua the same ward. Had the petitioner been bonafide, the attempt to make a correction or amend the details in the form would have been made soon after the declaration of the said result. No such attempt was made and it is only after the reporting date and after the rejection of the application form by the school, on verification of the documents, that the attempt to amend the entries in the application form has been made.
Clause 4.1.9 of the guidelines/scheme specifically provides that if there is any error in the details, documents etc. of the application form, the responsibility of the same would only be of the parent concerned.
[2023:RJ-JD:38457]
[CW-8262/2023]
after the application having been rejected, the attempt to upload the documents, subsequently created, has been made.
dismissed .
(REKHA BORANA),J
113-Sachin/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether admission to a private school under Section 12(1)(C) of the RTE Act should be granted where the petitioner intentionally misstated residential ward details to secure priority.
Whether a correction of erroneous ward details made only after the rejection date and post-facto document submission justifies judicial interference.
Whether the petitioner fulfilled the responsibility under the admission guidelines regarding accuracy of application details.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aaradhya Bhati
State Of Rajasthan
Montessori Child Center
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
