Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39092 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6035 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Prakash Verma,Pinki Devi,Shivani Raj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uday Veer Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This Court, in view of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that despite, the admission granted to the petitioner in respondent no. 3-School, the Principal is not permitting the ward of the petitioner to carry out his studies. In the light of the said argument, this Court had directed to service of notice on the respondent no. 3 and the C.J.M. Gonda was directed to serve a copy of the petition on the Principal of the respondent no. 2. A report has been submitted that the order has been complied with and the respondent no. 3 has been served. Despite the said notice, nobody appears for the respondent no. 3. 3. The facts as emerge are that the son of the petitioner namely Rudra Verma was granted admission under the RTE Act and was allotted the respondent no. 3-School, thus in terms of the mandate of Section 12 read with Section 2(n) of the Act, it was incumbent on the respondent no. 3 to have permitted the son of the petitioner namely Rudra Verma to take the classes for furtherance of the right guaranteed under Article 21-A, however unfortunately, the son of the petitioner is not permitted to take classes. 4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 states that respondent no. 2 has already issued a warning letter to the respondent no. 3, in which, it has also been stated that the affiliation of the respondent no. 3-School may be cancelled. He also states that on a communication being made by the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 3 had written a letter that the Aadhar Card of the mother and father of the child were having certain discrepancies. 5. Considering the said submission, once the right is granted under Article 21-A, it is incumbent upon the respondent no. 3, which is a School as defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act and is bound to follow the directions. The stand taken by the respondent no. 3 as communicated by the counsel for the respondent no. 2, cannot be a ground to deny the right of education to the child in question, as such, the present petition is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to permit the child namely Rudra Verma in the respondent no. 3- School. In case, the respondent no. 3 still does not comply with the directions given herein above, the Principal of the respondent no. 3 shall be personally liable for contempt of this Court and suitable actions shall be taken against the Principal by this Court. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench