The Bombay High Court has held that the residential requirement for admission under the neighbourhood quota provided by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) is a mandatory eligibility condition and not a mere procedural formality. The Court observed that an applicant seeking admission under the reserved quota must establish actual residence through credible and cogent evidence, failing which the statutory objective of ensuring access to education for children from weaker sections living in the neighbourhood would be defeated.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed a writ petition filed by a minor student challenging the rejection of his application for admission to Podar International School, Wagholi, for the academic year 2026-27 under the neighbourhood reservation provided by the RTE Act.
The petitioner, represented by his father, had challenged the Education Department’s order dated May 2, 2026 rejecting the online application on the ground that valid proof of residence had not been furnished. It was contended that the family was residing in a flat obtained on a leave-and-licence arrangement from the petitioner’s grandmother, which was situated within the prescribed distance from the school. The petitioner further claimed that the rejection resulted from an error in Google Maps, which allegedly reflected an incorrect location during the online admission process.
During the proceedings, the High Court directed the State Education Department to conduct a physical verification of the address furnished in the admission application. The inspection report revealed that the premises did not appear to be used as a residential dwelling. The authorities found an eating house operating on the ground floor and only a single bed on the first floor, casting serious doubt on the petitioner’s claim of residence. The Court also noted material inconsistencies between the address mentioned in the online admission application and those reflected in the petitioner’s father’s Aadhaar Card and Voter Identity Card.
The Bench held that the burden of proving residential eligibility squarely rested upon the applicant and that mere assertions regarding mapping errors or technical glitches could not substitute documentary proof of actual residence. It observed that the petitioner had failed to produce contemporaneous records such as electricity bills, bank correspondence or other reliable documents demonstrating that the family genuinely resided at the claimed address.
Emphasising the object of the statutory scheme under the RTE Act, the Court observed that the neighbourhood criterion was an essential eligibility condition governing admissions under the reserved quota intended for children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups. It held that relaxing or overlooking this requirement in the absence of satisfactory proof would not only frustrate the legislative intent but could also deprive another deserving child, who genuinely satisfied the neighbourhood criteria, of the opportunity to secure admission.
The petitioner had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, contending that rejection of the application violated the child’s fundamental right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution. However, the Bench found no arbitrariness or illegality in the decision of the educational authorities and concluded that the rejection was based on valid reasons supported by the verification exercise.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to establish compliance with the mandatory residential eligibility requirement, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the rejection of the application for admission under the neighbourhood quota.
The post Bombay High Court upholds rejection of RTE admission over failure to prove neighbourhood residence appeared first on India Legal.