SAMPATRAO RAMRAO TELI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Restriction on Repeated Claims Under RTE 25% Quota: Once Allotted and Availed, a Beneficiary Cannot Seek Fresh Admission for the Same Standard to the Detriment of Other Eligible Children.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:11220-DB
Decision Date: 07-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 21-A; Constitution of India, Article 226; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009; Welfare Legislation and Equitable Distribution Principles
- Facts: The petitioner's son was granted admission to the First Standard under the 25% reservation quota of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) for the academic year 2024–2025. After accepting the seat, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew his son from the school due to personal reasons, including a change of residence and distance. For the subsequent academic year 2025–2026, the petitioner applied again for admission to the First Standard under the same RTE quota and was provisionally selected through a lottery. However, the respondent authorities cancelled the admission on the grounds that the child had already availed himself of the benefit of the scheme in the previous year. The petitioner challenged this cancellation, arguing that there is no express bar in the RTE Act against seeking fresh admission after participating in a new lottery.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to approve the son's admission under the RTE quota for the year 2025–2026.
- Issue: Whether a child who has already been allotted and has availed of a seat under the 25% RTE reservation quota can repeatedly apply for fresh admission under the same scheme for the same standard in a different academic year.
- Holding: No, the petition was dismissed. The court held that once the benefit of the RTE reservation scheme has been availed, a parent cannot repeatedly claim admission under the same quota for the same standard, as it would deprive other eligible children of the limited available seats.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act is a welfare measure intended to ensure equitable access to education for disadvantaged groups. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in "Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India", the Court emphasized that the objective of the Act is social inclusion and the expansion of access to as many eligible children as possible. Allowing a single beneficiary to repeatedly occupy and then vacate seats under the quota for personal convenience would lead to the unfair exclusion of other children on the waiting list and result in the waste of statutory seats. While Article 21-A guarantees the right to education, it does not confer a right to repeatedly claim a specific welfare benefit after it has been utilized once. The Court noted that the authorities had offered to accommodate the child in the original school or facilitate a transfer, which the petitioner refused, further undermining his claim for equitable relief.
🔒 For Members Only