Failure to consider binding precedent on progressive school expansion necessitates remand of administrative rejection order.

The petitioner, a registered Charitable Trust running schools since 1959, sought permission to expand its "Krishna Care English Medium School" (currently teaching Standards 1–5) to include Standards 6–8.

The District Education Officer rejected the application on 09.12.2024, and the Director of Primary Education (Respondent No. 2) dismissed the subsequent appeal on 19.06.2025.

The rejection was primarily based on non-compliance with playground size requirements introduced via a 2019 amendment to the Bombay Primary Education (Gujarat Amendment) Rules.

The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing they were contrary to the Division Bench ruling in Podar International School v. State of Gujarat.

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in law by failing to apply the binding precedent of the Division Bench regarding the progressive opening of school classes.

2. Whether the requirement of specific playground dimensions under the 2019 Rules applies to an existing school seeking to add higher standards progressively.

The Court applied the principles established by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Podar International School v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 10183 of 2019), which clarified that the restrictive 2019 amendments regarding playground ownership and size do not strictly apply to existing schools progressively adding classes 6–8.

The court also noted the impact of Government Resolution dated 16.09.2019, which restored earlier, more flexible positions regarding long-term lease/rent in lieu of absolute ownership of land.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s situation was identical to the Podar International School case, where the Division Bench held that adding Standards 6–8 to an existing school is a "progressive" expansion rather than the "opening of a new school".

Consequently, the stringent playground stipulations of the February 2019 notification should not have been used to block the application.

Although the petitioner cited this binding precedent before the Appellate Authority, the Director of Primary Education summarily dismissed its applicability without valid reasoning.

The High Court found this refusal to follow the Division Bench's ratio to be a clear legal error. Because the Appellate Authority failed to consider the restored legal position under the September 2019 Government Resolution, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable.

The High Court allowed the petition in part, quashing and setting aside the Appellate Authority's order dated 19.06.2025, and remanded the matter to the Director of Primary Education for fresh consideration with a specific timeline for appearance, hearing, and final order.