[2025:RJ-JP:48031] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9976/2019 Mihir Dadhich S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Dadhich, aged about 6 years, through his natural guardian Mother, Smt. Pushpa Sharma W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Dadhich aged about 29 years R/o 2653 Jat Ke Kua Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Rajasthan State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, 2, Jan Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur 302015. 3. District Education Officer, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur. 4. Maheshwari Public School, through its Principal, Sector-4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Pujari Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma Advocate. Mr. Devansh Sharma Deputy Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 24/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed instant writ petition through his natural guardian and mother seeking issuance of directions against the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in Maheshwari Public School under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2009') and to take disciplinary action against Respondent No. 4-school for violating the provisions of the Act of 2009 as well as provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2016'). [2025:RJ-JP:48031] (2 of 4) [CW-9976/2019] 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to weaker section of the society and is entitled for free elementary education under the provisions of the Act of 2009 as well as for admission in Class-I in Respondent No. 4-school. It is submitted that despite the fact that name of the petitioner was mentioned at Serial No. 14 of the list of selected aspirants, admission ws denied to him for no legitimate reasons whereas earlier, Respondent No. 4 directed the petitioner to submit certain documents with regard to certifying his date of birth, domicile, income of father etc. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Act of 2009 are mandatory in nature as the Act has been enacted under Article 21A of the Constitution of India and the same provides for taking disciplinary action against the school which violates the provisions of the Act of 2009. 3. Reply to writ petition was filed by Respondent No. 4 opposing the writ petition. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 has submitted that writ petition has not been filed with correct and complete facts, rather, relevant facts which are having material bearing were concealed. It is submitted that none of the provisions of the Act of 2009 has been violated by Respondent No. 4 and the correct facts are that as per the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the guidelines framed thereunder, the student, who is aspirant of taking admission under the Act of 2009, is bound to reside within the periphery of one/three kilometers as per the class in which he/she was aspiring admission. In the instant case, the petitioner is resident of Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur and, thereby, residing outside the ward where Respondent No. 4-school is situated. Respondent No. 4-school is situated at Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur which at a distant [2025:RJ-JP:48031] (3 of 4) [CW-9976/2019] place from Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur and admittedly, outside the same ward. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the guidelines framed by the Government thereunder, the petitioner was not entitled for admission under the provisions of the Act of 2009. However, in the application form filed on behalf of the petitioner, incorrect ward number was mentioned and as per the directives issued by the State of Rajasthan for Session 2019-20 (Annexure-R4/1), it was the duty of the parents of the aspiring student to submit all the correct facts and in the event of non-filing the same, the application form was liable to be rejected. It was also specified that any incorrect information would also entail rejection of application form. Thus, under the aforesaid circumstances, where the information with regard to ward number of residence of the petitioner was wrongly furnished, admission was rightly not granted by Respondent No. 4. Since, there is no illegality in the action taken by Respondent No. 4, therefore, it is not liable for any disciplinary action whatsoever. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 that even otherwise, admission was sought by the petitioner for Class-I in the year 2019 and on account of there being no stay in the writ petition, the cause of action for pursuing the instant writ petition does not survive. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. Objection raised by learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 that the information with regard to ward number of residence of the petitioner was incorrectly mentioned in the application form, has not been controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner and no rejoinder to reply has been filed, so as to establish that there was no [2025:RJ-JP:48031] (4 of 4) [CW-9976/2019] error in the application form in respect of ward number of place of residence of the petitioner. 6. It has also not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions of the Act of 2009 as well as the guidelines framed by the State Government thereunder, admission to the aspiring student was to be given after considering the distance of the school from the residence of the aspiring student. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was residing beyond the peripheral limit prescribed under the guidelines framed by the State Government under the Act of 2009, therefore, he was not entitled to be admitted in Class-I in Respondent No. 4-school. 7. Thus, it is clear that Respondent No. 4 has not committed any error, irregularity or illegality in the instant case. Therefore, no disciplinary action was warranted against Respondent No. 4. 8. In the light of above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI