Residence Proof Is Essential Requirement For Admission Under RTE's Neighbourhood Schools Quota: Bombay High Court

Dismissing a petition seeking admission in a school under the 'neighbourhood' reservation provided under the Right To Education (RTE) Act, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (June 25) held that residential requirement is not an empty formality but is an essential eligibility criteria for admissions under the said quota, which provides admission of people from the weaker section and lower strata of the society in nearby private unaided schools. [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297]

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad dismissed a petition filed by a minor boy through his father seeking a direction to a Pune-based school to admit him in the academic year of 2026 to 2027 under section 12(1)(c). 

This provision mandates that private, unaided schools reserve at least 25 per cent of their entry-level seats for children from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Disadvantaged Groups (DG) living within the school's defined neighbourhood. 

However, in the present matter, the address mentioned by the petitioner's father in the admission form did not match with that on his documents such as Voter ID, Aadhar Card etc. The father contended that he lived in a rented house. However, the school authorities on verifying virtually, found discrepancies in the address and the Google Maps data. 

Even a physical verification, pursuant to the order of the bench, revealed that there was serious discrepancy in the address mentioned on the admission form and the actual residence, which was not in the neighbourhood of the School in question. 

Therefore, the bench held, "The residential requirement is not an empty formality, but constitutes an essential eligibility condition governing admission under the reserved quota. Diluting or overlooking such requirement in the absence of satisfactory proof would not only defeat the object of the statutory scheme, but may result in denying admission to another needy child who genuinely satisfies the 'neighbourhood' conditions."

The order penned by Justice Ankhad also dismissed the father's contention that his residence was within 950 meters of the School. The father argued that the School authority denied admission by relying on erroneous discrepancy in the address generated through Google Maps in the online Application. 

The judges found from the report of the education department that the actual address mentioned in the admission form comprised of a house having a single cot on the first floor, while the ground floor was being used by the child's grandmother to run a small eating establishment. The bench said that there was no material indicating that the petitioner and his family ordinarily reside at the said premises.

"It is not possible to accept that a family of three members can reside in such premises with only one bed/cot. There is no independent evidence establishing actual residence at the claimed address. No electricity bills, water bills, gas connection, bank correspondence, ration card or any other contemporaneous documents have been produced to substantiate continuous residence. The burden of establishing residential eligibility squarely rests upon the Petitioner. Mere assertions regarding errors in the auto-generated Google address cannot substitute proof of actual residence," Justice Ankhad observed. 

With these observations, the judges dismissed the petition. 

Appearance:

Advocate Ahilya Nalawade appeared for the Petitioner.

Government Pleader Neha Bhide along with Additional Government Pleader Kedar Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader GR Raghuwanshi represented State. 

Case Title: Manas Sandip Sathe vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 7601 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 297

Click Here To Read/Download Order