[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Looshiv Yadav (Minor) 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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
