Chattisgarh High Court
Aashvi Priya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 22 of 2016
C. V. Bhagvant Rao versus Union of India & Others
WPC/3567/2025, WPC/3569/2025, WPC/3572/2025, WPC/3570/2025,
WPC/3573/2025, WPC/3574/2025, WPC/414/2026, WPC/2345/2022,
WPC/4588/2025, WPC/3095/2025, WPC/3106/2025, WPC/3107/2025,
and WPC/3112/2025
Order Sheet
11/03/2026 Heard Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioner in WPPIL No. 22/2016, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast, learned counsel
for the petitioner in WPC No. 2345/ 2022 and for respondent Nos.
34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 & 47 in WPPIL No. 22/2016, Ms. Sweeksha Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPC Nos. 3095/2025, 3106/2025, 3107/2025 and 3112/2025, Mr. Aman Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC No. 3567/2025, Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPC Nos. 3569/2025, 3570/2025, 3572/2025, 3573/2025 and 3574/2025 and for intervenors in WPPIL No. 2 22/2016, Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC No. 4588/2025, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC No. 414/2026, and Mr. Vikash Tiwari, appearing in person for Intervenor.
Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State, Mr. Annapurna Tiwari, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent - Union of India, Mr. C.R.Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 32, Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel for the respondents No. 33 and 46, Mr. Shrejal Gupta holding brief of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.38, Mr. Shivansh Gopal holding brief of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.42 and Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.48, 49 and 50 in WPPIL No.22/2016.
On 02.03.2026, this Court had directed the Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh, to file his personal affidavit with respect to a news items published in two different news papers, on the said date. In compliance thereof, the Secretary has filed his affidavit. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:
"7. It is submitted that as far as the incident 3 reported in news paper Dainik Bhaskar dated 02/03/2026 is concerned, it was reported therein that the principal got whitewash work performed by students. In this regard an enquiry was conducted by DEO Surajpur, and it was found that Smt. Vidhu Sharma had been harsh, excessively rude and strict in her behaviour towards parents of the students of DAV Mukhyamantri Public School Tilsiwa, Surajpur. It was further found that Smt. Vidhu Sharma was residing in the school premises without any authorissation from the School Education Department or the DAV management. It was further revealed that the husband of Smt. Vidhu Sharma also used to frequently visit the school premises, and it was further revealed that there had ben instances of harsh behavior towards the complainant by the parents. However, those incidents could not be verified conclusively. A copy of the inquiry report is attached herewith as Annexure D.
9. It is submitted that further steps have been recommended and DAV management has also created its own inquiry team which is due to submit 4 its report by 07/03/2026. The DAV management has immediately removed Smt. Vidhu Sharma from charge as Principal of Mukhyamantri Public School and in her place Shri Sunil Mahajan has been given additional charge. A copy of letter dated 02/03/2026 is annexed herewith as Annexure E."
From perusal of the same, it transpires that action has been taken against the delinquent Principal and she has been removed and some other person has been given the charge of Principal.
Mr. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the draft guidelines under Section 35(2) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 has been prepared and has been sent to the School Education Department by the Directorate, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh and would be finalised very soon. However, they are in the process of consulting with the Department of Law also as an abundant caution for which at least four week's time may be required.
Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if such long time is granted, the new academic session would be affected. He further draws attention of this Court to the complaints that have not been decided by the authorities. As per the affidavit filed by the Secretary, School Education, total offline complaints received were 172 out of which 5 only 54 have been resolved and 118 remains unresolved which is in respect of District Durg only. The complaints ought to be decided within the same academic session and should not be allowed to keep pending for further academic sessions. Such act is hampering the admission of the needy poor students and the object of the Right to Education Act is being defeated.
In view of the above, the District Education Officer, Durg, is directed to consider and decide the pending 118 cases as shown in the chart at paragraph 6 of the affidavit, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.
Mr. Vikash Tiwari, Intervenor, appearing in person has pointed out that the grievances raised by him though have been forwarded by the Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh to the District Education Officer, Durg, Raipur and Bilaspur on 05.02.2026 (Annexure B) and they were directed to consider his grievance within a period of one week but till date, nothing has been done.
The Deputy Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, is directed to ensure that the concerned District Education Officer shall comply with his order dated 05.02.2026 and shall inform this Court with respect to the outcome by the next date of hearing.
Mr. Tiwari, Intervenor, appearing in person further submits 6 that he has filed an application for taking document on record being IA No. 14/2026 wherein he has annexed a document Annexure I-46 which is an advertisement published by Krishna Public School, Tulssi, Raipur, in a Hindi Daily, namely Patrika, dated 07.03.2026, which states that admissions are open for the session 2026-2027. It states about six schools namely (i) Tulssi Krishna Kids Academy, (ii) Tulssi Krishna Kids Academy, Mowa,
(iii) Krishna Public School, Shankar Nagar, (iv) Krishna Kids Academy, New Rajendra Nagar, (v) Krishna Kids Academy, Sunder Nagar and; (vi) Krishna Kids Academy, Shailendra Nagar. According to Mr. Tiwari, the advertisement issued is pertaining to the schools which are not having the required recognition and publishing the advertisement for fresh admission which is contempt of the lawful authority of this Hon'ble Court as this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 05.08.2025, 13.08.2025 and 17.09.2025, had directed the Secretary, School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh to submit the details of the action taken against such schools which are being run without required recognition.
In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to implead "Krishna Public School, through Principal, Tulssi, Baradera Road, Near CRFP Camp, Tulsi, Raipur, as party respondent No. 51, during course of the day. It is ordered accordingly. 7
Thereafter, notices be issued to the newly impleaded respondent, on IA No. 14/2026, dated 10.03.2026, filed by the Intervenor, Mr. Vikas Tiwari, as per rules.
The learned State counsel is also directed to get the notice served upon the newly impleaded respondent.
Further, the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, is also directed to file his personal affidavit in response to the above IA i.e. IA No. 14/2026, filed by the Intervenor.
Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner {in WPC No. 414/2026} submits that this petition was earlier listed before a learned Single Judge but vide order dated 04.02.2026, this case has been listed alongwith the present bunch of petitions.
In WPC No. 414/2026, the petitioner therein has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order / communication dated 16.12.2025, issued by the School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the Respondent-State has arbitrarily directed that admissions under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ("RTE Act") shall be limited only to Class-1, and that the statutory twenty-five percent reservation for children belonging to the Weaker Section and Disadvantaged Group shall 8 not be applied to pre-school classes.
Mr. Paranjpe submits that the impugned communication constitutes a wholesale departure from the statutory mandate of Section 12(1)(c) and its proviso, which expressly extends the 25% reservation to pre-school education wherever a school imparts such education. The exclusion of pre-school classes from the RTE framework is arbitrary, discriminatory, and creates constitutionally impermissible two-tier entry system, wherein fee- paying children are admitted at pre-school levels, while weaker section and disadvantaged group children are artificially denied foundational early education. Since 2010, the State Government has consistently interpreted and implemented Section 12(1)(c) to include pre-school as reflected in admissions, the circulars dated 12.04.2010, 07.04.2015 and 23.11.2016, all of which mandate that weaker section and disadvantaged group children are entitled to admission at pre-school levels wherever such classes exist. These circulars have never been withdrawn, superseded, or amended. The impugned communication is thus per se inconsistent with the Respondent-State's own statutory scheme.
Mr. Paranjpe further submits that recently, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, vide judgment dated 08.01.2026, wherein analogous restrictions were imposed by the State of Rajasthan, were struck down after exhaustive 9 interpretation of Section 12(1)(c) and its proviso. The Rajasthan High Court held that State Government lacks any power to restrict the entry level under Section 12(1)(c); that pre-school admission is compulsory wherever schools impart pre-school education; and that exclusion of weaker section and disadvantaged group children from pre-school classes violates Articles 14 and 21-A of the Constitution. Despite repeated representations by the petitioner association pointing out the legal infirmities in the impugned order, the respondents have failed to take corrective measures. The impugned action not only violates statutory and constitutional mandates but also gravely undermines the rights of thousands of disadvantaged children who are entitled to foundational early education under the RTE Act.
Issuance of notice to the respondent/State is dispensed with as they are duly represented by learned Deputy Advocate General.
The State/respondents are directed to file return/return within a period of one week and thereafter, the petitioner, if so advised, may file their rejoinder within a further period of one week.
Mr. Devershi Thakur, lastly submits that the State has till date not answered to the query made by this Court that in the current session, when there were 85000 reserve seats, why there 10 has been a reduction of 30,000 reserved seats.
The Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh shall, in his affidavit, also respond to the above submission made by Mr. Thakur.
Let these matters be listed on 24th March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed by
AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.03.11
19:53:14 +0530