1 2026:CGHC:27080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3353 of 2026 Mohan Sahu S/o Darasram Sahu Aged About 42 Years Caste Teli Resident Of Village Mohatra, P.O. Latuwa Tahsil And Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) Pin 493332 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Education Department Of School Education And Literacy Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi -110001 2 - Novodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Through Its Commissioner, B-15 Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh -201309 3 - The Principal /admission In- Charge, Pm Shri School Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya -Lawan, District Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), Pin 493526 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Union of India/Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. Heard. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.03 11:02:00 +0530 2 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 Quash the impugned cancellation letter dated 19.05.2026 (Annexure P-13) issued by Respondent No. 3. 10.2 Direct the Respondents to safely condone the minor online typographical error, accept the explanatory affidavit (Annexure P-11), and grant immediate regular admission to the minor child Master Khilesh Sahu in Class-VI at PM SHRI JNV Lawan for the academic session 2026-27. 10.3 Grant any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order/letter dated 19.05.2026 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the provisional selection/admission of the petitioner’s minor son, Master Khilesh Sahu, for admission in Class-VI in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lawan, District Baloda Bazar, has been cancelled, and has further sought a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner’s son for admission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted an application for admission of his son, namely Master Khilesh Sahu, in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lawan, District Baloda Bazar and on the basis of the information furnished by the 3 petitioner, a provisional order of selection/admission in favour of the petitioner’s son was issued for admission in Class-VI. He would submit that subsequently the said admission has been cancelled on the sole ground that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that his son had studied in Class-IV twice / had repeated the class, and therefore the information furnished in the application form was treated to be incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the said omission was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred on account of a bona fide mistake and misunderstanding while filling up the online application form. It is submitted that immediately upon coming to know of the discrepancy, the petitioner submitted an affidavit on 04.05.2026 disclosing the true facts before the concerned authority and explaining the circumstances in which such incorrect entry came to be made. It is thus submitted that the rejection/cancellation order dated 19.05.2026 deserves reconsideration in the light of the affidavit already submitted by the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India would submit that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information in the application form regarding the educational particulars of his son and, therefore, the respondents have rightly cancelled the provisional admission. It is submitted that the petitioner was under an obligation to disclose the correct facts at the time of submission of the application itself and having failed to 4 do so, the petitioner cannot claim any equitable relief. It is further submitted that the application of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly rejected by the competent authority. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the provisional admission of the petitioner’s son has been cancelled on the ground that incorrect information was furnished in the application form with regard to his previous class/study particulars. It also appears that according to the petitioner, such incorrect disclosure occurred due to a bona fide mistake and misunderstanding and thereafter the petitioner has already submitted an affidavit dated 04.05.2026 before the concerned authority placing the true facts on record. 8. This Court finds that the ground of rejection communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 19.05.2026 requires reconsideration by the competent authority in the light of the affidavit already submitted by the petitioner on 04.05.2026. In case the petitioner has already placed the true facts before the authority by way of affidavit prior to issuance of the impugned order, the said aspect ought to have been considered by the competent authority before passing the final order with regard to cancellation of admission. 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, 5 this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall appear before the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lawan, District Baloda Bazar, on 06.07.2026 along with a copy of this order and all relevant documents including the affidavit dated 04.05.2026. 10. In the event of the petitioner so appearing, the concerned Principal/competent authority shall consider the grievance of the petitioner afresh, particularly in the light of the affidavit dated 04.05.2026 and the documents submitted by the petitioner, and thereafter pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, keeping in view the object of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act and the facts of the present case, as expeditiously as possible. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and the competent authority shall take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh