In a judgment delivered on October 19, 2026, the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by a mother challenging the cancellation of her six-year-old daughter’s school admission under the 25% Right to Education (RTE) quota. Justice N. J. Jamadar held that distance criteria for “neighbourhood schools” must be applied with requisite flexibility, and technical errors or minor distance variations cannot be allowed to defeat the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory elementary education under Article 21A.
Background
- The RTE Application and Allotment: The petitioner, a mother belonging to a Scheduled Caste (a disadvantaged group under the RTE Act), applied for the admission of her six-year-old daughter, Krishika, under the 25% weaker section and disadvantaged group quota. Balmohan Vidyamandir (Respondent No. 2) was given as the third preference, and the child was allotted a seat by the Education Officer on April 10, 2026.
- Refusal and Subsequent Appeal: Respondent No. 2 school initially declined to admit the student without ascribing immediate reasons and later filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education (Respondent No. 1), challenging the eligibility on the ground that the actual distance between the petitioner’s residence and the school was approximately 4 km (exceeding the 1 km rule), and an incorrect aerial distance (0.417 km) had been entered in the online application.
- The Impugned Order: By order dated August 14, 2026, the Deputy Director of Education cancelled the allotment of the petitioner’s daughter on the ground of excess distance, while permitting admissions for other children whose residences fell within a 1 km to 3 km range. Aggrieved, the mother approached the High Court under Article 226.
Court’s Analysis
1. Constitutional Goal and Legislative Intent of the RTE Act
- Citing the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Dinesh Jiwaji Ashtikar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court underscored that the obligation of a “neighbourhood school” to admit 25% children from weaker and disadvantaged sections is a transformative measure designed to operationalize equality of status, dignity, and social integration in formative years.
- The common school system under the RTE Act breaks down barriers of caste and class, serving as a vital civic space for social justice.
2. Flexibility in the Concept of “Neighbourhood School”
- While examining statutory provisions (Section 3 and 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009, and the Maharashtra Rules, 2011), the Court noted that the term “neighbourhood school” is qualified by the expression “as far as possible”.
- Distance is a relative concept, especially in a dense metropolis like Mumbai where transport availability and accessibility vary.
- A rigid, pedantic interpretation that denudes a contiguous area of its neighbourhood characteristics due to a minor variation of a few kilometres especially when alternative private unaided options are unavailable would infringe upon the child’s fundamental right to education.
3. Bona Fide Error vs. Deliberate Suppression
- The Court observed that the petitioner had provided her correct residential address and genuine supporting documents (Aadhaar Card, Electricity Bill); only the calculated aerial distance in the form was inaccurate.
- Even if the error was inadvertent or bona fide, it could not outweigh the critical prejudice the child would face by losing an entire academic year, particularly when the authorities delayed passing orders until August 2026.
Relief and Directions
- Petition Allowed: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned cancellation order dated August 14, 2026, was quashed and set aside.
- Admission Mandated: The State authorities and Respondent No. 2 School were directed to take immediate steps to admit the petitioner’s daughter into Standard 1 at Balmohan Vidyamandir within one week.
Citation in a Line
Citation: Karuna Sumit Kamble v. Deputy Director of Education (2026:BHC-AS:42896)
Leave a Reply