RTE Act In Whole Applicable To Private Unaided School: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Two Students
The Allahabad High Court was considering the Petition filed by the parents/guardian of two students who were detained from writing the exams.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, Allahabad High Court
While granting relief to two students who were detained from writing the exams, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, in whole, is applicable to the private unaided schools.
The petition before the High Court was filed by two petitioners, through their father and natural guardian, stating that the first petitioner, aged about 11 years is studying in Class V and the second petitioner, aged about 14 years, is studying in Class IX in the respondent School. It was stated that both children, besides pursuing their studies, are also pursuing the skills in cricket, and they have joined a Cricket Academy at Lucknow. It was stated that, although the petitioners had never been detained in past, they were detained in the examination held for the session 2024-2025.
The Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia held, “In the present case, the first issue to be decided is whether, the private unaided schools are liable to the mandate of Section 16 or not. Paragraph 64 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra) is clear that the Act in whole, is applicable to all the schools as defined under section 2(n) of the RTE Act. The distinction as sought to be interpreted by the counsel for the respondents that the private unaided school, are only to follow the mandate of Section 12 and not the other provisions, merits rejection solely on the ground of interpretation of the Act and its applicability to the private aided schools by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra).”
Advocate Manish Jauhari represented the Applicant while C.S.C. P K Sinha represented the Respondents.
Arguments
It was the petitioner’s case that the respondent authorities were unhappy with the petitioners as they were pursuing their hobby in Cricket, and on account of the said grievance, they were not being permitted to undergo examination afresh. As per the Petitioners, even if the respondent was of the view that the petitioners needed improvement in their academic performance, they ought to have been given a chance to appear in re-examination.
The respondent school filed a counter affidavit stating that although the petitioners have a right of free and compulsory education, guaranteed by Article 21-A read with the Act, however, both students did not have the requisite attendance.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, was framed in pursuance of the Right of Education included in the Constitution by virtue of Article 21-A. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and another (2012), the Bench rejected the distinction as sought to be interpreted by the respondents that the private unaided schools were only to follow the mandate of Section 12 and not the other provisions.
Holding that there was a clear violation of the rights of the children flowing from Section 16 (2) of the Act, the Bench further noted that the action of the respondent school in expelling the students was also violative of Section 16 (4).
As per the Bench, the action against the two students was founded on the internal discipline guidelines of the school as well as guidelines of minimum attendance issued by the affiliating board, that is the ICSE. Considering that the appropriate Government i.e. the State of UP, had not issued any prescriptions under Section 16 of the RTE Act, the Bench held that the said internal guidelines and guidelines of the affiliating Board would have to yield to the mandate of the Act.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench directed the respondents to readmit the first petitioner and permit him to pursue the studies in Class VI after granting him an opportunity of re-examination within a period of two months. The Bench also ordered that the second petitioner be readmitted to Class IX as the requisite records of students passing Class IX had already been uploaded on the website of ICSE, and it might not be possible for the second petitioner to take the examination in Class X.
Cause Title: Huzaifa Khan v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:57720)
Appearance
Petitioners: Advocates Manish Jauhari, Ambuj Kumar Bajpai
Respondents: C.S.C. P K Sinha