Bombay High Court
Umar Khan S/O Mohsin Khan Thr. Its ... vs State Of Maha., Thr. Its ... on 6 July, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
1 69-WP-3531-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3531 OF 2023
(Umar Khan s/o Mohsin Khan, through its Natural Guardian Mohsin Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar with Shri Manish Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Sheikh Majid, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Ms Radhika Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.5.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JULY 6, 2023
The petitioner seeks to raise a challenge to the action of respondent No.5
- Sandipani High School in rejecting the application for admission of the
petitioner to Class I under 25% reservation quota as provided under the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short "Act of 2009").
2] As per the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009, children
belonging to the weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood
to the extent of 25% are eligible for being admitted in Class I. The petitioner
sought admission of his minor son under the said quota. The application made
by the petitioner along with various documents as well as the rent agreement
dated 23/3/2018 came to be examined by the Authorities and on that basis, a
communication was issued by the Block Education Officer to the School that the
minor child was admitted through the online portal. Subsequently, however, it
was informed on the portal that since the address proof submitted by the
petitioner was not found to be valid, the admission of the minor came to be
cancelled. Being aggrieved, the cancellation of admission is under challenge.
3] The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having verified all
the requisite documents, the Block Education Officer acknowledged the
admission of the minor through the online portal. This was done on 11/5/2023.
However, the School without any authority of law issued a communication to the
Block Education Officer on 16/5/2023 and made a request for re-examining the
said documents. On the request made by the School, a Committee was
2 69-WP-3531-2023.odt
constituted and it is stated to have visited the premises indicated in the
application on 19/5/2023 and then submitted a report that the petitioner was
not residing at the given address. Relying upon the Circular dated 28/2/2023
and especially Clause 10 thereof, it was submitted that the School had no
authority whatsoever to seek verification of the documents after the admission of
the minor was approved by the Block Education Officer. It was further submitted
that the rent agreement clearly indicated the correct address where the
petitioner was residing and hence merely on the basis of inquiries made in the
vicinity, it could not have been held that the petitioner was not residing at the
given address. Placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in
Shahnaz Khatoon & Ors. Vs. GD Goenka Public School [Cont. Case (C) No.
83/2022 decided on 31/5/2023 and 1/6/2023], it was submitted that since the
petitioner belonged to the weaker section and disadvantaged group, his minor
child was entitled to be admitted at respondent No.5 - School.
4] The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 - Block Education
Officer relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that initial verification of
documents would not mean that all information given therein was liable to be
accepted. Referring to Clause 2 of the Circular dated 28/2/2023, it was pointed
out that when a rent agreement was relied, it was subject to verification by the
Authorities. On the communication issued by the School, such verification was
carried out and the Enquiry Committee found that the petitioner was not
residing at the given address. Since admission was sought under Section 12(1)
(c) of the Act of 2009, it was necessary to comply with the statutory
requirements and no admission could be granted disregarding the statutory
provisions.
5] The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5, in addition,
submitted that it was justified in seeking verification of the address mentioned in
the form submitted by the petitioner. Based on the information that the
petitioner was not residing at the given address and his residence was beyond
the distance prescribed in that regard, it was submitted that the cancellation of
admission of the minor was for non-fulfillment of the required criteria. She also
invited attention to the Aadhaar Card of the minor child to indicate the address
3 69-WP-3531-2023.odt
stated therein which was different from what was mentioned in the rent
agreement.
6] On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the
documents on record, we find that though the documents submitted initially by
the petitioner were verified by the Block Education Officer, it was evident that
the petitioner and his minor child were not residing in the neighbourhood as
defined by Section 2(m) of the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (for short "Rules of 2011"). The term
"neighbourhood school" has been defined to mean a school within a distance of
one kilometer of the neighbourhood having minimum of 20 children in the age
group of 6 to 11. As per the Circular dated 28/2/2023, the place of residence
indicated by an applicant was liable to be verified. It has been specifically
provided that the address given in the rent agreement was subject to verification
and if it was found that the family was not residing at the address given, the
admission was liable to be cancelled. The Block Education Officer on 17/5/2023
directed the concerned Committee as constituted to visit the address mentioned
in the application form. The same was done by the said Committee on
19/5/2023 and it found that the petitioner was not residing at the given
address. The address mentioned in the application form was "110 Amma Manjil,
c/o Yunus Bhai Gore, Hazari Pahad, Nagpur". It is not disputed that the address
given is at a distance beyond the prescribed limits under the Rules of 2011 from
the School in question. While on one hand, the Committee constituted submitted
its report on 19/5/2023, the petitioner seeks to rely upon an affidavit dated
24/6/2023 of the son of Mohd. Yunus that the petitioner was residing at the
address mentioned in the application form. We find that this is a disputed
question of fact and it cannot be conclusively held in writ jurisdiction that the
petitioner does reside at the given address. On the other hand, the documents
produced by the School which were submitted along with the application form
indicate a different address than the one mentioned in the application form.
7] It is thus clear that in accordance with Clause 2 of the Circular dated
28/2/2023, the Block Education Officer verified the address that was stated in
the application form and based on the report of the Committee as constituted
4 69-WP-3531-2023.odt
cancelled the admission on being satisfied that the family was not residing
therein. There is no uncontroverted material on record to hold that the
petitioner resides at the address given in the application form and hence the
admission was not liable to be cancelled. In these disputed facts, the ratio of the
decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied
to the facts of the present case.
8] The Writ Petition therefore stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
SUMIT
