1 CGHC010281102026 2026:CGHC:36153-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 718 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 Chirag Sahu (Minor) S/o Shri Dhaneshwar Sahu Aged About 10 Years Represented Through His Natural Guardian/father Shri Dhaneshwar Sahu, Resident Of Village- Dodki, Post- Chicha, Block- Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. For Respondent : Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.14 18:54:10 +0530 2 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, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 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. 2829 of 2026 (Chirag Sahu (Minor) vs. Union of India & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by respondent herein came to be disposed of. 3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the present matter arises out of a writ petition preferred by the respondent questioning the action of appellant No.3, Principal, PM-SHRI Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Borai, District Durg, whereby the provisional selection/admission of the respondent for Class VI for the academic session 2026-27 was cancelled upon verification of the eligibility documents. According to the appellants, the action so taken is strictly in accordance with the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Selection Test (JNVST)-2026 prospectus and the applicable eligibility conditions. He further submitted that Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) were 3 established by the Government of India pursuant to the National Policy on Education, 1986, with the object of providing quality modern education to talented children, predominantly from rural areas. These are fully residential, co-educational institutions financed and administered by the Government of India through the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), under the Ministry of Education. Admissions are made through the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Selection Test, on the basis of a uniform, merit-based and district-specific system. 4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General further contended that the admission process for Class VI for the academic session 2026-27 was governed by the JNVST-2026 prospectus, under which eligibility is not determined merely on the basis of securing a position in the provisional selection list. Clause 3.1 expressly provides that provisional selection does not confer an indefeasible right to admission and that the admission remains subject to verification of the original documents and fulfilment of all prescribed eligibility conditions. He also contended that, for the academic session in question, the admission process was conducted through an online system. At the time of verification, the candidate was required to establish, inter alia, his identity, date of birth, residence and educational particulars through the prescribed documents. The prospectus specifically cautions candidates to furnish correct information and provides that any discrepancy between the particulars furnished in the application and the supporting documents may result in cancellation of candidature. 4 5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would submit that the central requirement under Clause 4.1 of the prospectus is that admission to Class VI in a JNV is district-specific. A candidate must be a bona fide resident of the district concerned where the JNV is situated and must also be studying Class V in the same district. Clause 3.5 further makes it clear that a provisionally selected candidate is to be admitted only in the JNV of the district from which he/she is residing and studying in Class V and appearing for the JNVST, and that the residence proof of the concerned district is required to be produced at the time of admission. He also submits that in the present case, upon verification of the respondent's documents, the authorities found a material discrepancy in respect of the district of residence. The residential certificate and Aadhaar particulars furnished by the respondent reflected his residence in the then Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (KCG) district, Rajnandgaon, whereas admission was sought against Durg district. It was also found that the respondent had studied Classes III and IV in the said district and had studied Class V in Durg district. Thus, according to the appellants, the respondent did not satisfy the twin requirement of residence in, and study of Class V in, the district concerned. It is, therefore, contended that the mere mention of Durg district in the online application could not override the documentary evidence produced at the stage of verification. The provisional selection was necessarily subject to verification, and once the documents disclosed that the prescribed district-specific eligibility conditions were not fulfilled, the provisional candidature could not ripen into a confirmed 5 right of admission. The cancellation was consequently not arbitrary, but was the result of application of the eligibility conditions uniformly applicable to all candidates. 6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General also place reliance upon the subsequent clarification issued by the NVS on 11.03.2026, whereby relaxation of the twin condition was contemplated in a limited situation where the candidate resides in one district but studies in another district and the school is situated within a radial distance of 10 kilometres from the candidate's residence. It is submitted that even this relaxation does not come to the aid of the respondent, as the distance between his residential district and the school district is stated to be more than 10 kilometres. He further submits that the requirement contained in the prospectus cannot be diluted on equitable considerations, as relaxation of the same in favour of an individual candidate would adversely affect other candidates who have strictly complied with the prescribed district- specific conditions. The object of the JNV scheme of providing quality education to talented rural children cannot be achieved by disregarding the eligibility framework which governs selection and admission throughout the country. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ku. Shubham Vijay Patil & Others v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti decided on 13.10.2022, wherein the Court, after considering Clauses 3.6 and 4.1 of the prospectus, held that a candidate seeking admission to a JNV must satisfy the twin requirement of studying Class V in the district where the JNV is situated and being a resident of the same 6 district. The said view was thereafter upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.19285 of 2022. Similar principles have been reiterated in 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 2025), wherein the Courts emphasized that the terms and conditions of the prospectus are binding and cannot be relaxed merely to accommodate an individual candidate who does not fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions. 7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General also referred to the decisions of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WA No.647 of 2024, Gitika Nirmalkar v. Union of India & Ors., and of the Allahabad High Court in WP No.11403 of 2023, Vishal Verma v. Union of India & Ors., as supporting the proposition that the eligibility conditions contained in the JNV prospectus are required to be adhered to at the stage of admission. It is further submitted that the respondent subsequently obtained a residence certificate showing Durg district residence dated 07.04.2026. According to the learned Deputy Solicitor General, the said certificate was obtained after disclosure of incorrect or suppressed particulars concerning the respondent's actual residence. The appellants rely upon the communication dated 15.07.2026 received from the competent authority in this regard. It is argued that an admission founded upon a subsequently procured residence certificate, contrary to the material available at the time of verification, would result in unfairness and discrimination against candidates who were otherwise 7 bona fide residents of the concerned district and had fulfilled the prescribed conditions. 8. Learned Deputy Solicitor General accordingly contend that no vested right accrued in favour of the respondent merely because his name appeared in the provisional selection list. His selection was expressly provisional and subject to verification of eligibility. Once the competent authority found that the documentary record did not satisfy the mandatory district-specific conditions, the appellants were bound to cancel the provisional candidature rather than grant an admission contrary to the governing prospectus. 9. Lastly, it is submitted that the admission process for the academic session 2026-27 has already been completed and the sanctioned seats of JNV, Durg stood filled on 17.06.2026. In these circumstances, and particularly when the respondent was found ineligible under the governing prospectus, the appellants submit that no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the respondent had admittedly studied Class V during the academic session 2025-2026 in Government Primary School, Dodki, District Durg and had applied for admission in JNV, Durg. It was contended that the respondent had also secured 90% marks and was provisionally selected. According to learned counsel, the documents 8 issued by the competent authorities clearly establish the respondent's schooling as well as residence in District Durg and, therefore, the rejection merely on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence” was rightly found arbitrary by the learned Single Judge. 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. 12. The principal question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellants were justified in cancelling the provisional selection of the respondent for admission to Class VI in PM- SHRI Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Durg, on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence”, despite the fact that the respondent had studied Class V during the academic session 2025-2026 in Government Primary School, Dodki, District Durg and had applied for admission to JNV Durg. 13. There can be no quarrel with the proposition advanced by the learned Deputy Solicitor General that the terms and conditions contained in the JNVST-2026 Prospectus are binding upon the candidates and that mere provisional selection does not confer an indefeasible right to admission. The authorities are undoubtedly entitled to verify the eligibility and original documents of a provisionally selected candidate before granting final admission. However, such power of verification has to be exercised fairly, objectively and in accordance with the principles of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness embodied in 9 Article 14 of the Constitution. The fact that the selection is provisional does not authorise the authorities to reject a candidate mechanically without properly considering the documents produced in support of his eligibility. 14. Clause 4.1(a) of the Prospectus provides that a candidate studying Class V in a district is permitted to apply for admission to the JNV situated in the same district, while Clause 4.1(c) requires the candidate to have studied Class V during the academic session 2025- 2026 in a Government or Government-recognized school situated in the same district. 15. In the present case, the certificate issued by Government Primary School, Dodki, Sankul Chicha, Block Dhamdha, District Durg, clearly establishes that the respondent studied Class V in District Durg during the relevant academic session. It is also undisputed that he applied for admission to JNV Durg and was provisionally selected after securing 90% marks. 16. The respondent's candidature was, however, cancelled on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence”. The appellants contend that certain residential particulars reflected his residence in the then KCG district, Rajnandgaon. At the same time, the record contains a residence certificate issued by the competent authority indicating the respondent's residence in District Durg. 17. In such circumstances, the mere existence of some documents reflecting a different district could not, by itself, justify cancellation of the 10 candidature. The authorities were required to examine the competing documents and record a reasoned finding as to which document was genuine and why the document supporting the respondent's residence in District Durg was liable to be discarded. 18. Significantly, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the residence certificate produced by the respondent in support of his residence in District Durg was cancelled, withdrawn or declared invalid by the competent authority. Nor has any proper enquiry been shown to have been conducted to establish that the said certificate was false, fabricated or obtained by suppression or misrepresentation of facts. The rejection of the candidature, therefore, appears to have proceeded merely on the basis of the expression “Mismatch in District of Residence”, without any proper determination of the factual dispute regarding the respondent's residential status. 19. The subsequent residence certificate dated 07.04.2026 also cannot be brushed aside merely by describing it as a subsequently procured document. If the appellants' case was that the said certificate had been obtained by furnishing incorrect or suppressed particulars, such assertion was required to be established through appropriate verification by the competent authority. The communication dated 15.07.2026, by itself, cannot substitute a reasoned determination regarding the validity of the certificate. 20. The reliance placed by the learned Deputy Solicitor General upon the decisions in Ku. Shubham Vijay Patil (supra) and the other cases 11 cited by him does not advance the appellants' case on the facts of the present matter. There is no dispute with the proposition that the eligibility conditions contained in the Prospectus cannot ordinarily be relaxed merely on equitable or sympathetic considerations. However, the present case does not involve relaxation of any eligibility condition. The question is whether the respondent was correctly found to be ineligible upon verification of the documents. 21. Similarly, the decision in Gitika Nirmalkar (supra), is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, the candidate had studied Class V in District Kabirdham but had sought admission in JNV Bemetara. In the present case, the respondent studied Class V in District Durg and sought admission in JNV Durg. Thus, the factual foundation on which Gitika Nirmalkar (supra) proceeded is absent in the present case. 22. We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly examined the decision-making process of the authorities in the light of Articles 14 and 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 constitutional importance of education and recognized the right to education as an inalienable fundamental right, casting an affirmative obligation upon the State in relation to education. 23. Likewise, in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another, 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 under Article 21-A. 12 24. These decisions do not mean that the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Prospectus can be ignored or relaxed. They do, however, underline that while applying such conditions, the authorities are required to act fairly, reasonably and in a non-arbitrary manner. An otherwise eligible child cannot be deprived of an educational opportunity merely on the basis of a cryptic or unreasoned administrative decision, particularly when official documents produced by the candidate have not been properly examined. 25. In the present case, the respondent had studied Class V in District Durg during the prescribed academic session and had applied for admission to JNV Durg. He had also secured 90% marks and produced documents issued by competent authorities supporting his residence in District Durg. The appellants, however, cancelled his candidature merely by recording “Mismatch in District of Residence”, without conducting any proper enquiry into the competing residential documents or recording a reasoned finding as to why the certificate supporting his residence in District Durg was not acceptable. 26. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was justified in holding that the decision-making process adopted by the authorities was arbitrary and unsustainable. 27. The contention that the respondent had studied Classes III and IV in the then KCG district also does not alter the position. The relevant eligibility requirement under the Prospectus pertains to the prescribed academic session and, in particular, the study of Class V during the 13 session 2025-2026. The fact that the respondent had studied in another district in earlier academic sessions cannot, by itself, establish his ineligibility when his Class V schooling and the JNV for which he sought admission were both in District Durg. 28. The appellants have also relied upon the clarification dated 11.03.2026 regarding the limited relaxation applicable where a candidate resides in one district but studies in another district, subject to the prescribed distance condition. In our view, the said clarification does not materially advance the case of the appellants. Such relaxation would become relevant where the candidate's residence in one district and schooling in another district are otherwise established. In the present case, the respondent has produced an official residence certificate supporting his residence in District Durg, and the appellants have failed to establish through a reasoned determination that the said certificate was invalid. The inapplicability of the said relaxation, therefore, cannot itself establish the respondent's ineligibility. 29. We are conscious of the submission that the admission process is competitive and that permitting an ineligible candidate to secure admission may prejudice other candidates who have strictly complied with the conditions of the Prospectus. The principle of equality in competitive selection is undoubtedly important. At the same time, equality also requires that a candidate should not be excluded on the basis of an unverified or unexplained discrepancy when official documents supporting his eligibility are available on record. 14 30. The learned Single Judge has not granted any relaxation of the prescribed eligibility condition. The direction issued is founded upon the finding that the respondent's candidature was cancelled without proper consideration and verification of the documents produced by him. 31. The contention that the sanctioned seats in JNV Durg had already been filled on 17.06.2026 also cannot come to the aid of the appellants. The respondent cannot be made to suffer on account of the passage of time during the pendency of the proceedings, particularly when his candidature was cancelled on a ground which was not established through a proper and reasoned determination. 32. The direction of the learned Single Judge for creation of a supernumerary seat, if the sanctioned seats have already been filled, is only consequential to the finding that the respondent's candidature was illegally rejected and ensures that his education is not prejudiced on account of such rejection. 33. We also find no substance in the contention that the learned Single Judge has interfered with the merit-based selection process. The respondent's merit was not substituted by the learned Single Judge. He had already participated in the JNVST-2026, secured 90% marks and was provisionally selected. The learned Single Judge examined only the legality of the subsequent cancellation of his candidature on the stated ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence”. The interference was thus within the legitimate scope of judicial review and was directed against the arbitrariness of the decision-making process rather than 15 against the selection procedure itself. 34. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the provisions of the Prospectus as well as the documents available on record. The finding that rejection of the respondent's candidature on the ground of “Mismatch in District of Residence” was arbitrary and unsustainable is based upon a proper appreciation of the material on record. 35. We find no perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. 36. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present writ appeal. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby affirmed. The appellants shall comply with the directions contained in paragraph 25 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, including the direction for accommodating the respondent against a supernumerary seat, if the sanctioned seats have already been filled. 37. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan