1 CGHC010281132026 2026:CGHC:36169-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 751 of 2026 1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Education, Department Of School Education And Literacy, C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, 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) ... Appellant(s) versus 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 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.14 18:54:10 +0530 2 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 8. Purusharth Yadav (Minor) S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 12 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/ 3 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 ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. For Respondents : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, 4 appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellants/respondents challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2830 of 2026 (Dumesh Kumar Sahu & Others vs. Union of India & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by respondents herein came to be disposed of. 3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the present intra- Court appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the rejection of their candidature for admission to Class VI in PM-SHRI Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Durg, was set aside. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the admission process is governed by the JNVST-2026 Prospectus and that provisional selection does not confer any vested or indefeasible right to admission. He further submitted that Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are district-specific institutions and admission to Class VI is strictly governed by the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Prospectus. Clause 3.1 specifically provides that provisional selection does not vest any right in a candidate to secure admission and that actual admission is subject to verification of original documents and fulfilment of all prescribed eligibility conditions. Likewise, Clauses 3.5 and 4.1 require the candidate to satisfy the prescribed conditions relating to residence in the concerned district and study of Class V in the same district. 5 4. Learned counsel Deputy Solicitor General further contended that at the stage of document verification, the respondents were required to establish their bona fide residence and educational particulars by producing the prescribed documents. Upon verification, discrepancies were found in the residential particulars furnished by the respondents. The residential documents and Aadhaar particulars available on record reflected their residence in the erstwhile Rajnandgaon/KCG district, whereas admission was sought against District Durg. The respondents had studied Classes III and IV in the said district and only Class V in District Durg. Thus, according to the appellants, the respondents could not establish the twin requirements governing district-specific admission merely by relying upon the fact that they had studied Class V in Durg. He also submitted that the information furnished by a candidate in the online application cannot override the documentary evidence produced at the time of verification. The entire admission process for the academic session 2026-27 was conducted through an online system, and the candidates were specifically required to furnish correct particulars relating to residence and schooling. Where a discrepancy is found between the information furnished in the application and the documents produced at the time of verification, the candidature is liable to be rejected in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General also contended that the subsequent residence certificates relied upon by the respondents could not retrospectively cure the defect in their candidature. It is contended that the respondents obtained residence certificates of District Durg 6 subsequently, and the appellants had received a communication from the concerned authority raising serious objections regarding the manner in which such certificates were obtained. According to the learned Deputy Solicitor Geneal, an admission based upon subsequently procured documents, contrary to the earlier residential record, would prejudice candidates who had strictly fulfilled the district-specific eligibility requirements. Reliance has also been placed upon the clarification issued by the NVS dated 11.03.2026, providing limited relaxation in the twin condition where a candidate resides in one district but studies in another district within a radial distance of 10 kilometres from the place of residence. It is submitted that the respondents do not fall within the scope of such relaxation, as the distance between their place of residence and the school in District Durg is stated to be beyond the permissible limit. 6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the terms and conditions of the Prospectus are binding upon all candidates and cannot be relaxed in an individual case merely on equitable or sympathetic considerations. In support of the said proposition, reliance has been placed upon the decisions in Ku. Shubham Vijay Patil & Others v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti decided on 13.10.2022, wherein the twin requirement of residence and study in the concerned district was upheld, as well as Minor Sonam Badiya & Others v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Others (WA No. 28188 of 2022), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors. v. Sooragayathry M. & Ors. (WA No. 873 of 2024), and Hanu Vadhwani (Minor) v. NVS & Ors. (WP No. 16058 of 7 2025), wherein the sanctity of the prospectus and the requirement of strict compliance with the prescribed eligibility conditions have been recognized. 7. It is further submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General that the judgment in WA No.647 of 2024, Gitika Nirmalkar v. Union of India & Ors. is particularly relevant inasmuch as the High Court has upheld the rejection of candidature where the candidate did not satisfy the district-specific eligibility requirement. The appellants contend that the same principle applies to the present case and that the learned Single Judge erred in treating the requirement relating to residence as inconsequential merely because the respondents had studied Class V in District Durg. 8. According to learned Deputy Solicitor General, the authorities did not act arbitrarily but merely implemented the eligibility criteria uniformly applicable to all candidates. Permitting the respondents to secure admission despite the discrepancy in their residential particulars would result in an exception being carved out in their favour and would cause prejudice to candidates who had complied with all the prescribed conditions. 9. Lastly, learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the admission process for the academic session 2026-27 has already been completed and the sanctioned seats in JNV, Durg stood filled on 17.06.2026. In such circumstances, and particularly when the respondents' eligibility itself was disputed on the basis of the documents 8 produced at the stage of verification, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed admission or creation of supernumerary seats. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order suffers from an erroneous appreciation of the Prospectus and the material on record and deserves to be set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondents ought to be dismissed. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the respondents had studied Class V in a Government Primary School situated in District Durg during the academic session 2025-2026 and had applied for admission to JNV, Durg. He submits that the respondents was provisionally selected on the basis of merit and had produced the requisite documents showing his schooling and residence in District Durg. He further submitted that the rejection on the vague ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence” was made without properly examining the documents issued by the competent authorities and without conducting any enquiry into their genuineness. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held the action of the appellants to be arbitrary and unsustainable and rightly directed admission of the respondents, including by creation of a supernumerary seat if necessary. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9 12. The principal question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the cancellation of the respondent’s provisional selection on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence”. On a careful consideration of the material placed on record, we find no error in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in intra-Court appellate jurisdiction. 13. It is not in dispute that the respondent studied Class V during the academic session 2025-2026 in Government Primary School, Dodki, District Durg and sought admission in JNV, Durg. The school certificate placed on record establishes that the respondent studied Class V in District Durg. The residence certificate relied upon by the respondent also certified his residence in District Durg. Thus, the documents produced by the respondent before the authorities prima facie satisfied the requirements contained in Clauses 4.1(a) and 4.1(c) of the JNVST- 2026 Prospectus. 14. The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that the decision of this Court in Gitika Nirmalkar (supra) was distinguishable on facts. In that case, the candidate had studied Class V in District Kabirdham but sought admission in JNV, Bemetara, whereas in the present case the respondent had studied Class V in District Durg and sought admission in JNV, Durg. Therefore, the said decision could not have been mechanically applied to deny admission to the respondent. 15. We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly 10 found that the candidature of the respondent could not have been rejected merely by recording “Mismatch in District of Residence”, particularly when certificates issued by competent authorities established that he had studied Class V in District Durg and had been certified to be a resident of the same district. The appellants have not been able to demonstrate that the said certificates were duly enquired into and found to be false before the respondent's candidature was cancelled. A cryptic rejection, without properly dealing with the material documents produced by a child candidate, cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an automated mismatch in the online system. 16. The reliance placed by the appellants upon the decisions laying down the sanctity of the terms of the prospectus is not in dispute as a general proposition. However, those decisions cannot come to the aid of the appellants where the very basis of rejection has been found factually unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has not diluted or rewritten the eligibility conditions contained in the prospectus; rather, the learned Single Judge has directed the authorities to apply those conditions fairly and objectively to the documents produced by the respondent. 17. The approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is also consistent with the constitutional significance attached to the right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution. In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India & Others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 398, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of education as a 11 constitutional right and underscored the obligation of the State to ensure that children are not deprived of educational opportunities by arbitrary administrative action. Likewise, in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the constitutional obligation of the State in relation to the right to free and compulsory education guaranteed to children between six and fourteen years of age. The learned Single Judge has rightly kept these constitutional considerations in view while examining the legality of the impugned rejection. 18. The contention that the seats in JNV, Durg had already been filled also does not justify interference with the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, while directing admission, has adequately protected the institutional position by providing that, in the event the sanctioned seats had already been filled, a supernumerary seat shall be created so that the respondent's education is not prejudiced on account of the illegal rejection of his candidature. 19. As regards the subsequent residence certificate relied upon by the appellants and the allegation that it was obtained by furnishing false or suppressed information, we find that such disputed factual allegations, in the absence of a duly established finding of fraud or fabrication, cannot retrospectively validate an otherwise unreasoned cancellation of candidature. The appellants were required to take a reasoned decision after objectively examining the documents relied upon by the 12 respondents. 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the learned Single Judge has considered the relevant provisions of the JNVST-2026 Prospectus, the documents produced by the respondent and the constitutional principles governing the right to education, and has thereafter passed a reasoned order. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on the material available on record and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in intra-Court appeal. 21. Consequently, we find no merit in the present writ appeal. The order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.2829 of 2026 is hereby affirmed. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants shall comply with the directions contained in paragraph 25 of the order of the learned Single Judge within the stipulated period, subject to the respondents otherwise fulfilling the requisite admission formalities. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan