1 2026:CGHC:25893 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2830 of 2026 1 - Dumesh Kumar Sahu (Minor) S/o Shri Toran Lal Sahu Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Toran Lal Sahu, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Gulsan Verma (Minor) S/o Shri Akhilesh Verma Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Grandfather Shri Anjori Verma, S/o Bhukhan Verma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Dodki, Post - Chicha, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Vedika Sahu (Minor) D/o Shri Tileshwar Sahu Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Tileshwar Sahu, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Devika Sahu (Minor) D/o Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahu Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Bhanu Pratap Sahu, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Lavanya Sahu (Minor) D/o Shri Damendra Sahu Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Damendra Sahu, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - Sonali Verma (Minor) D/o Shri Vivekanand Verma Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Vivekanand Verma, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Tikendra Kumar (Minor) S/o Shri Mohit Sahu Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Mohit Sahu, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.01 11:26:15 +0530 2 8 - Purusharth Yadav (Minor) S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 12 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 9 - Rishabh Kumar (Minor) S/o Shri Bhikhu Ram Sahu Aged About 11 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Bhikhu Ram Sahu, R/o Village Semariya, Post - Litiya, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh 10 - Diksha Varma (Minor) S/o Shri Mahendra Aged About 12 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Grandfather Shri Banen Lal Verma, S/o Fagli Ram Verma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Dodki, Post - Chicha, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 11 - Sahil Kumar Sinha (Minor) S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Kumar Sinha Aged About 12 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ Father Shri Bhuneshwar Kumar Sinha, R/o Village Dodki, Post - Chicha, Block - Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Education, Department Of School Education And Literacy, C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Rd, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Delhi 110001. 2 - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Through Its Commissioner, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201309. 3 - The Principal Pm-Shri Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Borai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 491001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Niraj Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent- Union of India : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI through VC and Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocates. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24/06/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the arbitrary action of Respondent No.3 in cancelling the provisionally granted admission of the Petitioners to Class VI in PM-SHRI Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, 3 Borai, District Durg {hereinafter “JNV Durg”} for the academic session 2026-2027. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the Petitioners are minor children aged about 10 years and belongs to different category. The Petitioners come from rural background and have consistently demonstrated academic excellence throughout their studies. Although the Petitioners’ family holds a domicile certificate pertaining to District Rajnandgaon, they have been residing in different villages falling under Block Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. The petitioners have successfully completed their Class V education as a regular student from Government Primary School located within District Durg. Respondent No. 2 issued the Prospectus/Notification for the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Selection Test (JNVST) 2026 for admission to Class VI. As per Clause 4.1 of the Prospectus, a candidate seeking admission was required to be a bona fide resident of the district concerned and must have studied Class V in a Government/Government-recognized school situated in the same district. Being fully eligible under the prescribed criteria, the Petitioners applied online for admission through JNVST-2026. In the application form, the Petitioners truthfully disclosed that they are residing in District Durg. After scrutiny of the application and supporting particulars, the Respondents accepted the Petitioners’ candidature and issued the, Admit Cards. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner appeared in the JNVST 4 examination held on 13.12.2025. Result of JNVST-2026 was declared on 10.03.2026. Owing to hard work and merit, the Petitioners were declared provisionally selected. Consequently, the Petitioners were provisionally selected for admission to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Durg, under the Rural quota. Upon provisional selection, the Petitioners were called for document verification. In compliance with the directions issued by the Respondents, the Petitioners’ guardians submitted all requisite original documents in support of the Petitioner's candidature. Among the documents submitted was a Local Residence Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, certifying the Petitioners’ residence. Petitioners further submitted a Residence Certificate in the format prescribed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, duly certified by the Block Education Officer, Dhamdha, and officially countersigned and sealed by the Tehsildar, Dhamdha, District Durg, on 06.04.2026. The said certificate constitutes official and statutory proof of the Petitioners’ residence within District Durg. Despite the Petitioners having successfully cleared the selection process and despite submission of all requisite documents establishing his residence and educational qualifications, Respondent No. 3, to the utter shock and dismay of the Petitioners and their family, arbitrarily cancelled the Petitioners’ admission on 08.04.2026. The status of the Petitioners on the online portal was changed from "Provisionally Selected" to "Rejected", assigning the reason as "Mismatch in District of Residence". The 5 impugned action of Respondent No. 3 is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the material available on record. The rejection has been made despite the existence of multiple official documents issued by competent authorities confirming the Petitioners’ residence in District Durg and their completion of Class V education from a school situated within the said district. Relying upon the Petitioners’ provisional selection and legitimate expectation of securing admission in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, the Petitioners withdrew their admission from previous schools. The withdrawal certificate issued by the said school further establishes that the Petitioners had duly completed their Class V education from the said institution. Aggrieved by the arbitrary cancellation of admission, the Petitioners immediately approached the concerned authorities and submitted representations seeking reconsideration of their case. A representation dated 09.04.2026 was submitted before the District Collector, Durg. Despite repeated representations and requests, the Respondents failed to redress the Petitioners’ grievance or provide any lawful justification for the rejection of their admission. The conduct of Respondent No. 3 not only reflects arbitrariness and mala fides but has also adversely affected the Petitioners’ ability to pursue admission elsewhere and continue their education without disruption. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned actions 6 of rejecting the Petitioners’ admission is ex-facie arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. For this, he would refer to clause 3.5, 4.1(a) and 4.1 (c) of the Prospectus for admission to Class VI in JNVs through selection test for the Session 2026-2027, which reads as under:- “3.5) The candidates and their parents may note that the candidates provisionally selected on the basis of the test will be admitted, only in the JNV located in the district from where they are residing and studying in class V and appearing for the JNVST. Under no circumstances, the provisionally selected candidate will be given admission to any other JNV. No request for shifting of students on account of medium of instruction in the JNV concerned, shifting of parents to other districts / States etc, will be entertained. All provisionally selected candidates must submit the residence proof of the district where he/she has studied class V and applied for JNVST. He/She has to produce a copy of the birth certificate issued by Government authority concerned at the time of admission. 4.1 (a) Admission of candidate to class VI in a JNV is district specific. A candidate who is studying class V in a district is allowed to apply for admission to JNV in the same district only. Only the Bonafide resident candidates from the district concerned where the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya has been located and studying class V in the same district are eligible to apply for admission to JNVs through JNVST. The valid residential proof as notified by Govt. of India of the parent of the same district where the candidate has studied class V and appeared for the JNVST is to be subbmitted by the provisionally selected candidate at the time of admission. However, if the district where JNV is opened is bifurcated at a later date, the old boundaries of the district are considered for the purpose of eligibility for admission into JNVST, in case a new 7 Vidyalaya is not opened in the newly bifurcated district yet (c) Candidate has to study class V in any of the Govt. or Govt. recognized schools located in the same District during 2025-26. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners squarely and unequivocally satisfy the conditions stipulated in the above clauses of the prospectus are they are bona fide resident of District Durg and have completed their Class V education from a government school located within District Durg. The reason for rejection is factually incorrect and unsustainable in law. Respondents completely failed to understand or consider the notarized affidavit dated 02.04.2026 submitted during verification, which stood as an uncontroverted statement of fact regarding the student's local residency and education. Rejecting the admission despite such clear evidentiary assertions constitutes a perverse exercise of administrative power. It is a matter of record that identical notifications and eligibility criteria have been applied in past years, and admissions have been granted to students under similar circumstances. The sudden change in interpretation or application rules, without prior notice, is arbitrary and unfair. The action of the Respondents is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it treats the Petitioners differently from other similarly situated students who were granted admission in previous years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply to the contention made by 8 counsel for Union of India that admission process for the academic session 2026-2027 has been completed and the seats are allotted to JNV Durg has been full and as such, this Writ Petition has become infructuous, submits that respondents have nowhere mentioned the time period during which the admission of the students was completed and how many seats have been fulfilled and no supporting documents have been filed before this Court. He submits that clause 3.10 of the prospectus states that the entire admission process including the release of wait lists will be closed by 31st December, 2026. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India submits that it is undisputed fact that petitioner was provisionally selected for the JNV Dist. Durg but as per the clause 4.1 of the prospectus, for taking admission in JVS, the candidate have to be bonafide resident of the district concerned JNV. It is pertinent to mention here that, petitioners arethe actual resident of Rajnandgaon District and Khairagarh Chuikhadan Gandai District, and JNV is situated in the same district also. As per the prospectus, it is clearly mentioned in Documents to be submitted after selection- iv.) Residence Certificate:- The valid residential proof (as notified Govt. of India) of the parent of the same District where the JNV is located & candidate has studied class V shall be furnished. The petitioners are not the bonafide resident of Durg District, at the time of filling the admission form for class VI. At the time of document verification they produced resident certificate which 9 reflects that they were resident of Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai district and district Rajnandgaon. The say of petitioner that, he has been deprived from taking admission in JNV and is violation of RTE, is not true, as the JNV is governed by the NEP as well as RTE, and to provide good quality modern education to the talented children predominantly from rural areas. It is noteworthy to mention here that, for residence proof, the resident certificate should be issued by the Government of India. The say of the petitioner that, the format has been produced by the NVS itself, and as per the residence certificate proforma, the parents has to furnish certificate of Aadhar card of the same district, and residence certificate issued by the Govt. of India, and looking to the produced document, petitioners are the resident of District Rajnandgaon and District Khairagarh Chuikhadan Gandai. Hence, as per the prospectus produced by the NVS, the candidate has to be bonafide resident, which is not the point fulfilled by the petitioners. The admission process is purely online mode and due to mismatch in the district of resident the candidature of the petitioners has been automatically rejected. It is humbly submitted before this court, that, JNV is not against the candidates, but for taking benefit of studying in JNV they have to fulfill the criteria of NVS Samiti and criteria mentioned in Prospectus. At this juncture, I would like to submit that, the admission process has been completed on June 2026 as the new session is going to start from July 2026. 10 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available with the petition carefully. 9. In the case at hand, the petitioners studied Class V during the academic session 2025–2026 at different Government Primary School located within the District Durg, and appeared in the JNVST-2026 for admission to Class VI in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Durg. They all were provisionally selected for admission and submitted all required documents, including residence certificates and proof of schooling in District Durg. However, Respondent No.3 cancelled the petitioners’ admission on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence” and changed the status from “Provisionally Selected” to “Rejected.” Despite submitting representations before the concerned authorities, no relief was granted. 10. Record reveals that respondent authorities have rejected the candidature of the petitioners for the reason that “Mismatch in District of Residence” which means according to the respondents, the petitioners are not the residents of the District in which they have applied for admission in the JNV i.e. District Durg. 11. Clause 4.1 (a) of the Prospectus for admission to Class VI in JNVs through selection test for the session 2026-2027 stipulates that ‘a candidate who is studying class V in a district is allowed to apply for admission to JNV in the same district only’. Further, clause 4.1 (c) of the said prospectus stipulates that ‘candidate has to study V in any of 11 the Govt. or Govt. recognized schools located in the same District during 2025-2026.’ 12. Perusal of certificates (Annexure P/8) issued by Government Primary School, Semariya and Dodki indicates that the petitioners studied Class V in Government Primary School located within the District Durg and according to certificate (Annxure P/5) issued by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner are residents of District Durg. 13. The certificate (Annexure P/8) and Annexure P/5 and its contents therein squarely satisfy the conditions stipulated by clause 4.1 (a) and (c) as the petitioners have completed their Class V education from District Durg and are seeking admission in JNV in the same district only and are also residents of Durg District. 14. Moreover, reliance placed by counsel for the respondent-Union of India in a judgment passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 647 of 2024 (Gitika Nirmalkar vs Union of India and Others) is not acceptable, as the same is distinguishable on facts in comparison with the present case. In the case of Gitika Nirmalkar, the petitioner was a student of district Kabirdham who completed his Class V in Kabirdham but was seeking admission in JNV Bemetara, as such, the petitioner in that case was not granted any benefit. However, in the instant case, the petitioners are claiming admission for Class VI in the JNV of District Durg and have also studied Class V in Government Primary School located within District Durg. 12 15. Mismatch cannot be assigned on the basis of District of Residence when the eligibility condition under Clause 4.1(a) and 4.1(c) primarily relates to the district from which the candidate has studied Class V and applied for admission to the concerned JNV. In the present case, the material available on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioners studied Class V in Government Primary School located within the District Durg during the academic session 2025-2026 and applied for admission to JNV Durg. Therefore, the rejection of petitioners’ candidature on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence” is arbitrary and unsustainable. 16. The respondents' action in the present case is required to be tested not only on the touchstone of the eligibility conditions contained in the Prospectus but also on the constitutional mandate underlying the right to education. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India and Others, reported in {(2009) 6 SCC 398}, held in paragraph 28, 29, 30, 33, 38 and 39, which reads as under:- “28. Education occupies a sacred place within our Constitution and culture. Article 21-A of the Constitution, adopted in 2002, codified this Court's holding in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. [(1993) 1 SCC 645] in which we established a right to education. Parliament did not merely affirm that right; the amending Act placed the right to education within the Constitution's set of fundamental rights, the most cherished principles of our society. As the Court observed in Unni Krishnan1: (SCC p. 664, para 8) 13 “8. The immortal poet Valluvar whose Tirukkural will surpass all ages and transcend all religions said of education: ‘Learning is excellence of wealth that none destroy; To man nought else affords reality of joy.’ ” 29. Education today remains liberation—a tool for the betterment of our civil institutions, the protection of our civil liberties, and the path to an informed and questioning citizenry. Then as now, we recognise education's “transcendental importance” in the lives of individuals and in the very survival of our Constitution and Republic. 30. In the years since the inclusion of Article 21-A, we have clarified that the right to education attaches to the individual as an inalienable human right. We have traced the broad scope of this right in R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. [(2007) 15 SCC 337 : AIR 2006 SC 1946] holding that the State must provide education to all children in all places, even in prisons, to the children of prisoners. We have also affirmed the inviolability of the right to education. 33. Unlike other fundamental rights, the right to education places a burden not only on the State, but also on the parent or guardian of every child, and on the child herself. Article 21-A, which reads as follows, places one obligation primarily on the State: “21-A. Right to education.—The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” By contrast, Article 51-A(k), which reads as follows, places burden squarely on the parents: “51-A. Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every citizen of India— *** (k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward 14 between the age of six and fourteen years.” The Constitution directs both burdens to achieve one end: the compulsory education of children, free from the fetters of cost, parental obstruction, or State inaction. The two Articles also balance the relative burdens on parents and the State. Parents sacrifice for the education of their children, by sending them to school for hours of the day, but only with a commensurate sacrifice of the State's resources. The right to education, then, is more than a human or fundamental right. It is a reciprocal agreement between the State and the family, and it places an affirmative burden on all participants in our civil society. 38. This Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur case {(2008) 6 SCC 1} observed as under: (SCC p. 660, para 482) “482. It has become necessary that the Government set a realistic target within which it must fully implement Article 21-A regarding free and compulsory education for the entire country. The Government should suitably revise budget allocations for education. The priorities have to be set correctly. The most important fundamental right may be Article 21-A, which, in the larger interest of the nation, must be fully implemented. Without Article 21-A, the other fundamental rights are effectively rendered meaningless. Education stands above other rights, as one's ability to enforce one's fundamental rights flows from one's education. This is ultimately why the judiciary must oversee the Government spending on free and compulsory education.” 39. In view of the importance of Article 21-A, it is imperative that the education which is provided to children in the primary schools should be in the environment of safety. 18. Further, in the matter of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and Another, reported in {(2012) 6 SCC 15 1}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 311, which reads as under:- “311. (1) Article 21-A casts an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to children of the age of 6 to 14 years and not on unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions. (2) Rights of children to free and compulsory education guaranteed under Article 21-A and the RTE Act can be enforced against the schools defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, except unaided minority and non-minority schools not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet their expenses from the appropriate Government or local authorities…...” 19. The right to education guaranteed under Article 21-A obliges the State to ensure that deserving students are not deprived of educational opportunities through arbitrary administrative decisions. While admission to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas is governed by the Prospectus, the eligibility conditions must be applied fairly, transparently and consistently. 20. In Avinash Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that education occupies a position of paramount importance under the Constitution. The Court held that Article 21-A recognizes education as a fundamental right and casts an affirmative obligation upon the State to ensure that children are not deprived of educational opportunities through arbitrary or unreasonable administrative action. The observations made therein underline that educational authorities are 16 expected to act fairly, transparently and in furtherance of the constitutional objective of facilitating access to education. 21. Similarly, in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that Article 21-A imposes a constitutional obligation upon the State to provide free and compulsory education to children between the ages of six and fourteen years. Although the decision primarily concerns the validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, it recognizes the overarching constitutional responsibility of State authorities while dealing with matters affecting a child's education. 22. The aforesaid decisions reinforce the principle that where a child has otherwise participated in the selection process and has produced documents issued by competent public authorities, the administrative authorities are expected to examine such documents objectively and fairly. An otherwise eligible candidate cannot be denied admission by a cryptic order unsupported by reasons or by ignoring material documents placed on record. 23. In the present case, the petitioners produced a school certificate establishing that they studied Class V in Government Primary School located within the District Durg during the relevant academic session, along with residence certificates issued by the competent authorities certifying their residence in District Durg. The respondents neither conducted any enquiry into the authenticity of those certificates nor 17 passed any reasoned order explaining why such official documents were rejected. The petitioners’ candidature was cancelled merely by assigning the reason "Mismatch in District of Residence". Such an unreasoned administrative action falls short of the standard of fairness expected of State authorities while dealing with a matter directly affecting a child's educational rights. 24. Thus, while the petitioner's eligibility continues to be governed by the Prospectus, the decision-making process adopted by the respondents must conform to the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness embodied in Article 14 and informed by the constitutional significance attached to the right to education under Article 21-A. It is this failure in the decision-making process that warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 25. For the aforesaid discussion, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners and grant them admission in Class VI in PM-SHRI Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Durg, for the academic session 2026-2027, if otherwise eligible, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event the seats have already been filled, the respondents shall create a supernumerary seat for accommodating the petitioners so that their education is not prejudiced on account of the illegal rejection of their candidature. 18 26. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the impugned action of Respondent No.3 rejecting the candidature/admission of the petitioners on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence” is quashed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash