SAMPATRAO RAMRAO TELI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:11220-DB
1 928WP1885.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2026
Sampatrao S/o Ramrao Teli,
Age 40 years, Occu. Private Job,
R/o. Near Temple of Swami Samarth,
Amrut Nagar, Purna, Tq. Purna,Dist. Parbhani. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Directorate of Primary Education,
Maharashtra State, Pune,
Central Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Pune.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani,
Tq. And Dist. Parbhani.
4. The Block Eduction Officer
Panchayat Samiti Purna,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondents
……..
Mr. Ramrao G. Nirmal – Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Tambe – AGP for the State
Mr. R. K. Ingole – Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
……..
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
AND
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
TH
DATED : 07 MARCH, 2026

2 928WP1885.2026.odt
JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.]: -
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of appropriate
writ, order or direction against the respondents. The petitioner primarily
prays for a direction to respondent No.2 to accept the admission form of
the petitioner’s son under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the RTE Act”) under the
25% reservation quota meant for children belonging to economically
weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. The petitioner has further
prayed for a direction to respondent No.3 to grant necessary sanction/
approval so as to extend the benefit of the RTE 25% reservation scheme
and the consequential educational benefits to the petitioner’s son.
2. The factual matrix of the present petition, as emerges from
the pleadings and documents placed on record, is that respondent No.2
had invited online applications under the RTE 25% reservation scheme
for the academic year 2025–2026 for admission to First Standard in
recognized private schools. The petitioner applied through the online
admission portal seeking admission for his son in First Standard under
the said scheme. While filling the online form, a specific question was
posed in the application portal as to whether the student had earlier
been selected in any lottery process under the RTE admission scheme.
The petitioner answered the said question in the affirmative and

3 928WP1885.2026.odt
furnished an undertaking that he would comply with all the conditions
prescribed under the scheme.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 issued a
th
provisional admit card on 14 February 2025 in favour of the
petitioner’s son directing the petitioner to get the necessary documents
verified from the Scrutiny Committee and thereafter approach
Jawaharlal Nehru English School, Purna, for admission. It was also
mentioned in the provisional admit card that if the petitioner failed to
complete the admission process within the stipulated period, the
provisional allotment would stand cancelled. According to the petitioner,
upon receiving the provisional admit card he withdrew the admission of
his son from the existing school, namely Little English School, Purna,
and requested the school authorities to remove his son’s name from the
online portal. After obtaining the transfer certificate from the said
school, the petitioner approached the Scrutiny Committee and
completed the document verification process.
th
4. However, on 4 July 2025 the petitioner received a
communication from respondent No.4 stating that the admission of the
petitioner’s son had been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner’s
son had already availed the benefit of the RTE 25% reservation scheme
during the academic year 2024–2025. The petitioner thereafter
th
submitted an application dated 19 March 2025 before respondent No.3

4 928WP1885.2026.odt
explaining that while filling the online form he had disclosed that his
son had earlier been selected under the RTE lottery system and that he
had participated in the present admission process because the online
portal contained only one option for response to the said question. The
petitioner requested reconsideration of the admission of his son under
the RTE scheme. Since no favourable response was received, the
rd
petitioner again submitted a representation on 23 May 2025 requesting
the authorities to grant admission to his son in the school allotted in the
lottery process. As no effective action was taken by the authorities, the
petitioner approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the respondent authorities failed to properly consider the fact that the
petitioner’s son had been selected in the lottery process under the RTE
25% reservation scheme for the academic year 2025–2026. It was
argued that once the child had been selected in the lottery process, the
authorities were bound to grant admission in accordance with the
scheme. The learned counsel further contended that there is no express
bar under the RTE Act which prevents a child from seeking admission
again under the RTE scheme if he participates afresh in the lottery
process and is selected. It was submitted that the RTE Act, being a
beneficial piece of legislation, has been enacted with the object of
ensuring that children belonging to weaker sections are not denied
access to elementary education due to financial constraints. According to

5 928WP1885.2026.odt
the learned counsel, cancellation of the admission of the petitioner’s son
defeats the very object of the RTE Act and also violates the fundamental
right to education guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution of
India.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.3 and 4 opposed the petition and submitted that the
action of the authorities is in strict conformity with the provisions and
object of the RTE Act as well as the rules governing admissions under
the 25% reservation scheme. It was submitted that the petitioner’s son
had already been granted admission under the RTE quota in First
Standard during the academic year 2024–2025 and that the benefit of
the scheme had thus been availed by the petitioner. It was argued that
once a seat under the 25% quota is allotted to a child and the admission
is taken, the same child cannot again participate in the admission
process for the same standard under the same scheme merely because
the parent wishes to change the school. Such conduct, according to the
respondents, would defeat the equitable distribution of the limited
number of seats reserved under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act and
would deprive other eligible children of the benefit of the scheme.
7. During the course of hearing, this Court requested the
learned counsel for the respondents to keep the concerned officer from
the office of respondent No.4 present before the Court so that the

6 928WP1885.2026.odt
possibility of resolving the matter amicably could be explored. The
petitioner was also directed to remain present personally before the
Court. Upon interacting with the petitioner, this Court enquired whether
he had earlier availed the benefit of the RTE 25% reservation scheme for
his son during the preceding academic year. The petitioner candidly
admitted that his son had indeed been granted admission in First
Standard under the RTE quota in the academic year 2024–2025.
However, the petitioner stated that due to family difficulties and the
distance of the school from his residence, he could not continue his son’s
education in that school. The petitioner further informed the Court that
he had subsequently changed his residence and therefore desired
admission in another school which was more convenient for him in
terms of picking up and dropping his son while attending his place of
employment. The petitioner also stated that presently his son had been
admitted in another nearby school by paying fees but that he belongs to
a poor family and falls below the economic threshold and therefore
seeks admission again under the RTE quota.
8. The officer representing respondent No.4 informed the
Court that although there exists a transfer policy under which a child
admitted under the RTE scheme may seek transfer to another school for
genuine reasons, there is no policy which permits the same child to
obtain fresh admission under the 25% reservation scheme multiple
times. The officer nevertheless expressed willingness to accommodate

7 928WP1885.2026.odt
the petitioner’s son in the school where he had originally been admitted
during the academic year 2024–2025 so that he could complete his
elementary education there, and suggested that the petitioner could
subsequently seek transfer to another school in accordance with the
transfer policy while taking admission in the next class.
9. When this Court again enquired from the petitioner
whether he was willing to continue his son’s education in the previously
allotted school, the petitioner declined the offer and insisted that
admission must be granted in the school allotted through the lottery
process for the academic year 2025–2026. The Court also enquired
about the distance between the petitioner’s present residence and the
earlier school in which admission had been granted during the academic
year 2024–2025. It was informed that the distance was not more than
one kilometre. It was further informed that the school in which the
petitioner had presently admitted his son by paying fees was also
located within a similar distance though slightly closer to his residence.
Despite repeated efforts by the Court to persuade the petitioner to
consider the reasonable proposal offered by the authorities, the
petitioner remained adamant and insisted upon fresh admission in First
Standard under the RTE scheme for the academic year 2025–2026.
10. In view of the petitioner’s refusal to accept the alternative
offered by the authorities, the Court proceeded to consider the matter

8 928WP1885.2026.odt
on merits. Upon perusal of the record and the documents placed before
the Court, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s son had secured
admission in First Standard under the 25% reservation quota in the
academic year 2024–2025. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner
had accepted the said admission and that a seat under the statutory
reservation scheme had been occupied in the concerned school. The
petitioner subsequently discontinued his son’s education in that school
for personal reasons. As a consequence, the petitioner’s son lost an
academic year and the seat allotted under the welfare scheme also
remained unutilized.
11. Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act mandates that unaided
private schools shall admit at least twenty-five percent of the strength of
the class at the entry level from children belonging to weaker sections
and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood and provide free and
compulsory elementary education till completion. The provision is
intended to ensure equitable access to education for children who would
otherwise be unable to afford education in private institutions. The
scheme operates through a structured admission process including
lottery selection where the number of eligible applicants exceeds the
number of available seats.
12. If the interpretation suggested by the petitioner were to be
accepted, it would permit a parent to repeatedly apply under the RTE

9 928WP1885.2026.odt
scheme for the same child until a preferred school is obtained, even after
availing the benefit of admission under the scheme earlier. Such a
practice would seriously undermine the purpose of Section 12(1)(c) and
would result in unfair exclusion of other eligible children who are
waiting for admission under the limited 25% quota. The scheme is
designed to distribute educational opportunities among as many eligible
children as possible, and not to enable repeated reallocation of seats to
the same beneficiary.
13. The Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools
of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1, while upholding the
constitutional validity of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, emphasized
that the provision is a welfare measure intended to ensure social
inclusion and equitable access to education for disadvantaged children.
The scheme must therefore be implemented in a manner that advances
its objective of expanding access rather than enabling repetitive claims
by the same beneficiary. The principle underlying such welfare
legislation is equitable distribution of benefits among all eligible
children belonging to weaker sections.
14. In the present case, the petitioner’s son had already been
granted admission under the RTE quota in the academic year 2024–
2025 and had thereby availed the benefit of the scheme. The petitioner
voluntarily discontinued his son’s education in that school due to

10 928WP1885.2026.odt
personal inconvenience. The respondents have even offered to
accommodate the child in the previously allotted school and suggested
the possibility of transfer in accordance with policy. However, the
petitioner has declined the said option and insists upon fresh admission
in First Standard under the scheme for the academic year 2025–2026. In
the considered view of this Court, such insistence is contrary to the spirit
and scheme of the RTE Act.
15. The cancellation of the admission by respondent No.4 on
the ground that the petitioner’s son had already availed the benefit of
the RTE 25% reservation scheme in the academic year 2024–2025
cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or violative of any statutory or
constitutional right. The decision of the authorities is consistent with the
objective of ensuring fair allocation of the limited seats reserved under
the scheme. The right to education under Article 21-A guarantees access
to elementary education, but it does not confer upon a parent the right
to repeatedly claim admission under a specific welfare quota after
having already availed the benefit once.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit
in the present writ petition. The action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
cancelling the admission of the petitioner’s son for the academic year
2025–2026 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or violation
of statutory provisions. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

11 928WP1885.2026.odt
17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
[HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/03/2026 10:32:41