Mumbai: In a relief for a six-year-old boy, who was denied admission to a school in Airoli, Navi Mumbai, under RTE Act solely because his father failed to submit a registered leave and licence agreement as proof of residence, Bombay high court stayed the rejection and directed that the application be processed forthwith.Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash, in an interim order on Thursday, said the court “cannot be a mute spectator” to the act of the education officer (primary), zilla parishad, Thane, denying admission to the petitioner. “Elementary admission is his fundamental right and the state is obliged to ensure that the petitioner is admitted to school and completes his elementary education,” they added.The minor had moved HC, through his father, seeking urgent relief. He had sought admission to Class 1. His petition said his father has been residing in Airoli on rent for 12 years. One of the conditions for RTE admission is submission of proof of residence 1km from the vicinity of the school in which admission is sought. If an applicant does not own the residential premises, a copy of the registered leave and licence agreement is to be submitted. Unaware of this requirement, the boy’s father submitted a copy of the licence agreement from July 2025 with the application. On May 15 this year, a provisional admission allotment letter was issued. However, on May 28, the application was rejected for non-submission of a registered licence agreement. The father’s representation to consider a fresh May 20 registered licence agreement was rejected on June 10 by Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation’s education department.The boy’s advocate, Sidheshwar Biradar, urged for interim protection as granted on May 21 by a Kolhapur bench in an identical case. The judges noted that records revealed that the father has been residing at the given address at least since 2021. The address in both agreements is the same and is reflected in documents relating to gas connection, passport and bank account. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner satisfies the conditions prescribed for admission and in such circumstances, the education officer “ought not to have rejected the application”, they said.The judges stayed the May 28 and June 10 rejection letters. The matter will be next heard on July 30.
