Rahul Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Date : 01-09-2026 Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Rashmi Ranjan, learned Advocate appearing for the State, and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.

The petitioner, a minor student aged about 11 years, is pursuing the present lis through his widowed mother and natural guardian, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by respondent No. 4, the Principal, PM-SHRI Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Piprakothi, whereby and whereunder the candidature/admission of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the school in which he had pursued his earlier studies was allegedly an unrecognized institution.

The aforesaid impediment, which had come in the way of the petitioner’s admission and was relied upon by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, has now been duly clarified by the State respondents, particularly the District Programme Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. It has been categorically stated that the school in which the petitioner had pursued his earlier studies had been granted formal provisional recognition (Prasvikriti) by the District Education Officer, East Champaran, under Section 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, read with Rule 11 of the Bihar Right to Education Rules, 2011, for imparting education from Classes I to VIII, vide certificate issued on 10.06.2022.

The aforesaid recognition was valid for a period of three years, w.e.f. 18.12.2021 to 18.12.2024. Thus, during the period when the petitioner was studying in Class III in the Academic Session 2023–2024 and a substantial part of Class IV in the Academic Session 2024–2025, the school possessed a valid and subsisting certificate of recognition issued by the competent district authority.

It has further been brought on record that, upon expiry of the aforesaid period of recognition on 18.12.2024, the management of the school submitted an online application seeking renewal of recognition through the e-Sambandhan portal of the Education Department. It has also been specifically clarified that no order under Section 18(3) of the RTE Act, 2009, withdrawing, cancelling or revoking the recognition of the said institution has ever been passed by the competent authority.

The concerned respondent has further stated in its detailed representation that, owing to a technical/data discrepancy in the UDISE portal, the status of the school was inadvertently reflected as that of an unrecognized school. Upon detection of the said discrepancy, the school management submitted Form A01 on 25.09.2025 before the district authorities seeking rectification of the UDISE database. Pursuant thereto, necessary corrections were carried out and, as per the updated UDISE portal records for the Academic Year 2026–2027, the status of the said school is now correctly reflected as an operational, private unaided and recognized school for Classes I to VIII.

From the materials available on record and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 6, it further appears that the administrative processing of recognition/renewal through the e-Sambandhan portal and the subsequent synchronization of data on the UDISE portal are essentially matters of internal procedure between the Education Department and the school administration. Such procedural or technical discrepancies cannot, in the facts of the present case, efface or invalidate the recognition which had admittedly been granted to the institution during the period when the petitioner was pursuing his studies therein.

Coming to the petitioner’s selection for admission, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for admission to Class VI under the OBC Rural quota and was duly declared successful in the selection process conducted for admission to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner qualified in the entrance examination on his own merit, securing an aggregate score of 96.25 marks, comprising 47.50 marks in Mental Ability, 25.00 marks in Arithmetic and 23.75 marks in Language, and obtained an overall rank of 72.

The aforesaid score and rank clearly demonstrate the merit of the petitioner and his successful performance in the selection process. However, despite being declared successful, the petitioner was denied admission solely on account of the previous school in which he had studied having been erroneously reflected as an unrecognized school.

When the matter was taken up on 31.08.2026, this Court requested the learned Advocate appearing for the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, to obtain instructions and apprise the Court of the present status of the petitioner’s admission. Today, Mr. Prasad submits that, upon publication of the result, the successful candidates were called for admission and the admission process has been completed. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had applied for admission to Class VI and, as per the applicable regulations, a total of 80 students are required to be admitted. All the available seats have already been filled up on the basis of merit and, therefore, no vacancy is presently available.

Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate appearing for the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, though does not dispute the stand taken by respondent No. 6 with regard to the recognition status of the school, however, he submits that, in view of the fact that all the seats have already been filled up in accordance with the prescribed procedure and merit position, it would be difficult for the Samiti to accommodate the petitioner at this stage. He further submits that the entrance examination was conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the result has accordingly been published. Therefore, according to him, the CBSE would be in a position to apprise this Court as to the appropriate manner in which the petitioner may be accommodated against a suitable seat.

Having carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the circumstances which have resulted in denial of his admission.

The merit of the petitioner is clearly borne out from his score card. He secured 96.25 marks and obtained an overall rank of 72 in the entrance examination. Had the issue relating to the status of his previous school not intervened, there appears to be no reason why, having regard to his merit and rank, the petitioner would not have been admitted to the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.

The erroneous reflection of the name/status of the school in the UDISE portal as an unrecognized institution cannot, in the facts of the present case, be attributed to the petitioner or his mother. The record placed before this Court indicates that the discrepancy was attributable to an error on the part of the concerned departmental authorities, which was subsequently rectified. More importantly, it has specifically been clarified by the competent authority that the school had not been declared unrecognized during the period when the petitioner was pursuing his studies therein.

A minor child, aged about 11 years, cannot be made to suffer for an administrative or technical lapse which was neither within his control nor attributable to him or his natural guardian. The petitioner had duly pursued his studies in the said institution, participated in the selection process, qualified the entrance examination on merit and secured an overall rank of 72. Having successfully crossed all these stages, denial of admission to him merely on account of an erroneous entry in the departmental database would, in the considered opinion of this Court, result in manifest prejudice to the petitioner.

The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is a minor child, aged about 11 years, who is pursuing his academic career at a formative stage of his life. At such a tender age, a child cannot reasonably be expected to understand, much less rectify, the intricacies of recognition of an educational institution, renewal of such recognition, or the correctness of entries made on governmental portals such as UDISE. These are matters entirely beyond the control, knowledge and understanding of a minor student. Having studied in the institution under a recognition which was granted by the competent authority, the petitioner cannot be visited with an adverse consequence merely because of a subsequent administrative or technical discrepancy in the official records.

The right of a child to pursue education cannot be rendered illusory by an administrative lapse for which the child bears no responsibility. The Court is required to adopt a child-centric approach while examining a matter where the academic future of a minor student is at stake. At this formative stage, even a short interruption in the continuity of education may have consequences extending beyond the immediate academic year. The Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the petitioner’s legitimate academic interest and the need to protect him from the consequences of an error committed at the administrative level deserve due consideration.

It is equally significant that the petitioner did not secure his claim for admission by seeking any relaxation in the eligibility criteria or by seeking any concession in the selection process. He participated in the prescribed entrance examination and secured 96.25 marks with an overall rank of 72 on his own merit. Thus, what the petitioner seeks is not any preferential treatment, but only that he should not be deprived of the benefit of a selection which he otherwise legitimately earned, on account of an error in the official record which was neither caused nor contributed to by him or his natural guardian.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the principle that an innocent child should not suffer for an administrative lapse assumes greater significance where the lapse has occurred at the level of the official record and has subsequently been acknowledged and rectified by the competent authority. The interests of the institution and the sanctity of the admission process undoubtedly deserve protection; however, those considerations cannot be allowed to operate to the detriment of a minor student who has demonstrated his merit and whose eligibility was otherwise not in dispute.

This Court is also conscious of the fact that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is required to conduct the admission process strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The decision taken by the Samiti cannot, therefore, be faulted merely because it relied upon the status of the school as reflected on the official portal at the relevant point of time. However, the petitioner cannot be made to bear the consequences of an error or discrepancy for which he is in no manner responsible.

In such circumstances, a balancing exercise is required to be undertaken so as to protect the petitioner’s legitimate claim without disturbing the admissions already made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. This Court, therefore, is of the considered opinion that the Secretary, Ministry of Education (Department of School Education and Literacy), Government of India, the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, the Central Board of Secondary Education and all other concerned authorities must deliberate upon the matter forthwith and work out a viable and lawful solution.

If necessary, and subject to the applicable rules and approval of the competent authority, a supernumerary seat in Class VI may be created for the petitioner, so that he may be admitted to the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and pursue his studies without any further impediment.

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and completed within two weeks from today, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a minor child and any further delay in securing his admission would cause serious prejudice to his education and academic interests.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.

A copy of this order shall be handed over/communicated to the learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India, as also the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and all other concerned authorities for its immediate compliance and necessary action.