RTE admission cannot be claimed multiple times for the same child to change schools.

The petitioner's son was granted admission to First Standard under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) 25% reservation quota for the academic year 2024–2025.

He subsequently discontinued his son's education in that school due to personal inconvenience and changed residence.

In the academic year 2025–2026, the petitioner again applied for his son's admission under the RTE 25% reservation scheme for First Standard and was provisionally allotted a seat.

However, respondent No. 4 cancelled the admission on 4th July 2025, stating that the petitioner’s son had already availed the RTE 25% reservation benefit in the previous academic year.

The petitioner sought a direction to respondent No. 2 to accept his son's admission form and to respondent No. 3 to grant sanction/approval for admission under the RTE scheme.

The Court attempted an amicable resolution, offering the petitioner continued admission in the previous school with the possibility of transfer, but the petitioner declined, insisting on new admission in the school allotted for 2025–2026.

1. Whether a child who has previously availed the benefit of admission under the RTE Act's 25% reservation quota can again seek fresh admission under the same scheme for the same standard merely due to a parent's desire to change schools.

2. Whether the cancellation of admission by the authorities in such a scenario is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of any statutory or constitutional right, including the right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India.

The court primarily applied Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which mandates unaided private schools to reserve 25% of entry-level seats for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups, aiming to ensure equitable access to education.

It further relied on the principles established in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1, which emphasized that Section 12(1)(c) is a welfare measure for social inclusion and equitable access for disadvantaged children, implying that the scheme should advance the objective of expanding access rather than enabling repetitive claims by the same beneficiary.

The court reasoned that allowing repeated applications under the RTE scheme by the same child, after once availing the benefit and then discontinuing for personal reasons, would undermine the purpose of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act.

Such a practice would lead to unfair exclusion of other eligible children awaiting admission under the limited 25% quota, contradicting the scheme's design to distribute educational opportunities among as many eligible children as possible, not to reallocate seats repeatedly to the same beneficiary.

The court noted that the petitioner voluntarily discontinued his son’s education, causing an academic year to be lost and an allotted seat to remain unutilized.

The insistence on fresh admission for the same standard after once availing the benefit was deemed contrary to the spirit of the RTE Act.

While Article 21-A guarantees access to elementary education, it does not confer a right to repeatedly claim admission under a specific welfare quota after the benefit has been previously availed.

The decision was consistent with the objective of ensuring fair allocation of limited seats under the RTE scheme.

Therefore, the petitioner's insistence on fresh admission in First Standard under the RTE scheme for the academic year 2025–2026 was deemed contrary to the spirit and scheme of the RTE Act.