(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Na.Ka.No. 587/ A3/ 2026 dated 9.06.2026 on the file of First Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to Admit the son of the petitioner Mukilan under RTE Act concession in UKG at Bethel Metric and Higher Secondary School second respondent herein.)

1. Challenge has been made against the order dated 09.06.2026 in Na.Ka.No.587/A3/2026 passed by the first respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner sought admission for his younger son, namely Mukilan, in LKG at the second respondent school during the second week of October 2025. However, the second respondent denied admission during the last week of November 2025 on the ground that proof of local residence was unavailable, despite the petitioner having submitted his Ration Card as valid proof of residence. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents seeking admission for his son under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act), 2009. As the said representation was not considered, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.17018 of 2026. This Court, by its order dated 28.04.2026, directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation. However, instead of complying with the directions in letter and spirit, the first respondent passed an adverse order dated 09.06.2026 in Na.Ka. No. 587/A3/2026. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's elder son, Elanchezhiyan, is currently studying in the 2nd standard at the second respondent’s school under the free education quota. It is submitted that the residence proof and other documents produced for the elder son's admission were duly accepted by the second respondent. However, when the exact same documents were submitted for the admission of the petitioner's younger son, the second respondent erroneously rejected them. Given that all requisite documents have been submitted, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner's younger son for admission, at least at the UKG level.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner’s younger son has already completed LKG by paying the regular school fee. For the current academic year 2026-27, the respondents have refused to consider the petitioner's request for UKG admission under the quota, citing the reason that the child must be admitted only at the entry level. However, the petitioner submits that the restriction regarding the entry level does not apply here in light of Sections 3, 4, and 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. As per the mandate of the said Act, 25% of the seats in private schools must be reserved and provided to children belonging to disadvantaged groups and weaker sections.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She contended that if a child belonging to a disadvantaged group is not admitted at the entry level, they are not entitled to free education. Therefore, it is impossible to grant admission once the opportunity at the entry level has been missed. She further submitted that since the child has already completed LKG and is currently studying in UKG and given that the petitioner had paid the fees for LKG, the petitioner is in a position to continue paying the fees. Accordingly, she prays for the dismissal of this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that, as stated by the petitioner, eight seats were initially available under the disadvantaged group category. However, he maintained that all those seats have lapsed since no admissions were made at the entry level. He further submitted that in the event any order is passed by this Court, the same will be duly considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The main object and reasoning of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) is to reserve 25% of seats in private unaided institutions for children belonging to disadvantaged groups. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner's younger child falls under the disadvantaged group category. When the petitioner's elder son was admitted under this same category (currently pursuing his 2nd standard), local residence documents were submitted and duly accepted by the respondents. However, when the exact same residence documents were submitted for the petitioner's younger son, they were rejected. This Court is unable to comprehend why a document accepted by the first respondent for the elder son's admission was deemed inapplicable to the younger son. Therefore, it appears that the impugned order was passed mechanically, without application of mind.

9. At this juncture, it is apposite to extract the definition of a "child belonging to disadvantaged group" as defined under Section 2(d) of the RTE Act, 2009:

                     2. Definitions:

                     (d) "child belonging to disadvantaged group" means [a child with disability or] a child belonging to the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribe, the socially and educationally backward class or such other group having disadvantage owing to social, cultural, economical, geographical, linguistic, gender or such other factor, as may be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification:

Therefore, a child belonging to a Scheduled Caste squarely falls under the category of a child belonging to a disadvantaged group.

10. Further, it is appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the said Act:

                     3. Right of child to free and compulsory education:

                     (1) Every child of the age of six to fourteen years, including a child referred to in clause 9d) or clause (e) of section 2, shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her elementary education;

                     (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing the elementary education.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid sections shows that children between the ages of 6 and 14 years are entitled to free and compulsory education under the Act. Furthermore, in terms of Section 3(2), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of charges or expenses. Further, under Section 12(2), the private school (the second respondent) is entitled to the reimbursement of all such school fees and expenses. For better appreciation, the relevant section is extracted below:

                     12.Extent of school's responsibility for free and compulsory education:

                     (2) The school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 providing free and compulsory elementary education as specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the extent of per-child-expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as may be prescribed:

A reading of the above text makes it clear that the second respondent is entitled to reimbursement. Consequently, the child is not required to pay any fees; instead, the Government is legally bound to pay or reimburse the fees for the child's education until the completion of elementary education.

11. It is also appropriate to extract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act:

                     4. Special provisions for children not admitted to, or who have not admitted to, or who have not completed, elementary education. - Where a child above six years of age has not been admitted in any school or though admitted, could not complete his or her elementary education, then, he or she shall be admitted in a class appropriate to his or her age:

                     Provided that where a child is directly admitted in a class appropriate to his or her age, then, he or she shall, in order to be at par with others, have a right to receive special training, in such manner, and within such time-limits, as may be prescribed:

                     Provided further that a child so admitted to elementary education shall be entitled to free education till completion of elementary education even after fourteen years.

The reading of this provision clarifies that a child can be admitted at any age, in which case they are entitled to pursue their studies in an appropriate class, to her/his age. This demonstrates that there is no legal embargo restricting a child from entering only at the initial entry-level grade; they remain entitled to admission up to the age of 14 years. Therefore, if a child belongs to a disadvantaged group, they can be admitted up to the age of 14 into an ageappropriate class, and the specific entry-level stage becomes immaterial for availing benefits under the Act. Although Section 3 states that a child is entitled to free education from the ages of 6 to 14, a conjoined reading of Sections 3 and 12 indicates that this entitlement extends to pre-school education as well.

12. In the present case, there is no dispute that the second respondent school imparts pre-school education. The petitioner's elder son was admitted to pre-school under the RTE Act and is now studying in the 2nd standard. The conjoined reading of Sections 3 and 12 makes it clear that the petitioner is entitled to pre-school education benefits for his child even prior to the age of six. Since the school approached by the petitioner imparts pre-school education starting from Lower Kindergarten (LKG), and the petitioner's younger son has now attained four years of age, Upper Kindergarten (UKG) is the ageappropriate class for his admission. Given that the petitioner submitted the application well ahead of the 2026–27 academic year, and the impugned rejection order was passed only on 09.06.2026, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. The fault lies entirely with the respondents, who refused the petitioner's application arbitrarily and without application of mind.

13. Such being the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2026, and the same is hereby quashed. Consequently, this Court directs the first respondent to pass appropriate orders to admit the petitioner's younger son, Mukilan, into the second respondent school within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receiving the communication from the first respondent, the second respondent school is directed to permit the petitioner's younger son, Mukilan, to attend classes regularly. In the meantime, without waiting for the formal order to be issued, the second respondent is directed to permit the child to attend classes starting from 18.09.2026.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.