25% RTE Quota Applies To Pre-Primary Classes, Limiting It To Class I Disadvantageous To Children From Weaker Sections: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court held that that the obligation to reserve 25% seats under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (“the Act”) was applicable not only to the Class I but also to all pre-primary levels wherever such education was offered.The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that by restricting the applicability to Class I,...
Rajasthan High Court held that that the obligation to reserve 25% seats under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (“the Act”) was applicable not only to the Class I but also to all pre-primary levels wherever such education was offered.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that by restricting the applicability to Class I, the purpose of the Act would be defeated since the students from weaker sections would be in a disadvantaged position as compared to other children who would have already studied in pre-primary classes.
“It is common knowledge that in schools which are unaided, admissions are not only given at Class-I level but are also given in the Montessori level, i.e., Pre Primary Schools. The students studying in those schools then get admitted in the same school at Class-I level…Thus, if a student coming from the marginalized and weaker section of the society is not allowed to be admitted at the Pre Primary level, he/she would not be able to compete and reach the same stage as those who are admitted with them at Class-I level.”
The Court was hearing a bunch of PILs against the guidelines issued by the State for Academic Session 2020-21 that restricted the application of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act to Class I only, as well as special appeals filed against a decision of the single bench that held that the State government was entitled to admit students to institutions at two levels i.e. Nursery at Pre School Education and Class I, with 25% quota at both of these levels.
It was the case of the petitioners that by restricting the applicability of Section 12(1)(c) to Class I, the children belonging to weaker section would be denied admission at the Pre-school admission level.
It was argued that as per proviso to Section 12(1)(c), it was categorically mentioned that in case of schools offering pre-school education, the 25% reservation mandated under the Section shall be applicable to such pre-primary levels too.
On the contrary, the counsel for the appellants argued that Section 12 did not envisage admission at two levels. If the admissions were made at the pre-school levels, then it was only at that level that the admission could be allowed against the 25% quota, but then the schools could not be asked to again make a separate 25% quota for admissions at Class I level.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the relevant sections of the Act, and highlighted the proviso to Section 12(f)(c), that recognized the concept of Pre-School education. Further, reference was made to Section 11 of the Act that also recognized the duty of the government to make necessary arrangements for providing free-pre-school education.
It was held that combined reading of both these provisions meant that the provisions of the Act were not limited to the children above the age of 6 years, but also to those who were below 6 years and above 3 years, and required pre-school education. Hence, similar benefit of 25% seats had to be kept at the stage of pre-elementary education.
The Court observed that in some cases, provisos were meant to create an exception to the main clause. However, proviso had to be understood as per the language mentioned therein. In clause 12(f)(c), the word “further” meant in addition to what was provided in the main clause. Hence, the proviso had to be treated as “in furtherance”.
“…mean that those schools, which are defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, mainly unaided schools not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority, would also have to provide free education to 25% of children coming from marginalized and weaker sections of the society at Pre Elementary school stage as they would be entitled to free education.”
It was further opined that the Act was framed to further the right to free education as provided under Section 21A. Hence, the provisions of the Act were to be understood and interpreted to bring about the concept of Section 21A.
The word “Elementary Education” had to be read and be inclusive even for those children who needed pre-primary education. The interpretation would have to be inclusive and not exclusive.
“Once 25% students from the marginalized and weaker sections of the society have been admitted in the schools at any of the levels and thereafter come to Class-I, the concerned respective schools need not again admit 25% students separately. However, if the percentage of children coming from marginalized and weaker sections of the society is found to be less than 25% at Class-I level, the concerned school would be bound to admit additional students from marginalized communities so that at the level of Class-I, 25% of the total strength of the class belongs to such marginalized students. It is only then the purpose of the RTE Act would be subserved…The percentage of 25% of students from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood shall continue to be maintained at all levels.”
Accordingly, the special appeals were dismissed and the PIL was disposed of.
Title: Rukmani Birla Modern High School v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 21