UMAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec. 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009, children belonging to the weaker Sec. 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 dtd. 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 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 dtd. 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 Sec. and disadvantaged group, his minor child was entitled to be admitted at respondent No.5 - School.