[2026:RJ-JP:10340] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8554/2025 Ihita D/o Hitesh Kumar, Aged About 6 Years, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Hitesh Kumar S/o Late Ramkishan Bagri R/o Sb183- A, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Ward No. 150 Jaipur- 302015. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Primary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur. 2. Distt. Education Officer (Primary), Jaipur. 3. Block Education Officer, Office At Shiksha Sankul JLN Marg Jaipur. 4. Maharaja Sawai Man Singh School, Sawai Ram Singh Road, Near Reserve Bank Of India, Jaipur Through Its Principal. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nadeem Mazahir Mr. Hitesh Bagri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Rahul Kumar for respondent No.4 Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG for State HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 10/03/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue directions to the respondents for making her admission under the Right to Education Act in the School -respondent No.4. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been allowed admission in Class-1 in the School- respondent No.4. [2026:RJ-JP:10340] (2 of 2) [CW-8554/2025] 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4- School states that the respondent- school has allowed admission to the petitioner, in view of the observations of the Court made on 20.01.2026. He further submits that the admission and order of the Court may not be treated as precedent, as the admission has been allowed to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of this case. He also submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner has been allowed admission, in view of the observations of the Court, the respondent- State be directed to reimburse the School- respondent No.4, as regards giving admission to her. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that since the admission has been given to the petitioner by the School- respondent No.4, in view of the observations of the Court against the seat available for the School, the State has no objection in making reimbursement. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of and the respondent- State is directed to make reimbursement to the School-respondent No.4 against the admission of the petitioner. 6. This order may not be treated as a precedent, as same has been passed in the peculiar facts of this case. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /229