Bombay HC Dismisses RTE Admission Writ After Physical Inspection Contradicts Claimed Residence Near Pune School

A Division Bench dismissed a minor's RTE admission petition after a State inspection found no evidence of actual residence at the address submitted, revealing four conflicting addresses across documents.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition filed by a minor child seeking admission to Podar International School, Wagholi, Pune, under the reserved neighbourhood quota of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, with the judgment authored by Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, found that a physical inspection of the claimed residence — ordered by the court itself during the hearing — produced no material evidence that the child or his family actually lived there. The bench held that the residential eligibility condition is not a technical formality but an essential requirement of the statutory scheme, and that the authorities had committed no error in rejecting the application.

The Admission Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner, Manas Sandip Sathe, is a minor who filed the petition through his next friend and father, Sandip Baburao Sathe. The family claimed to have been residing since 6 August 2025 in Flat No. 101, first floor, Survey No. 56, Samarth Nagar, Aaple Ghar, Kharadi, Pune – 411014, a flat taken on leave and licence from the child's grandmother, Mrs. Kantabai Bhausaheb Jagdhane. A copy of the Leave and Licence Agreement was placed on record as Exhibit A.

The petitioner's case was that this address is approximately 950 metres from Podar International School, Wagholi, and therefore satisfies the neighbourhood criterion for admission under the RTE Act's reserved quota for the academic year 2026–27. The petition sought a direction to the school to accept the application, subject to verification of actual residence.

The online application was rejected on 2 May 2026. The stated ground was that the proof of residence submitted was not valid. The petitioner's father attributed the rejection to an erroneous discrepancy in the address auto-generated through Google Maps in the online application portal, and submitted representations requesting physical verification. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune, rejected the appeal on 5 May 2026. The Deputy Director of Education affirmed that rejection on 22 May 2026. The petitioner then approached the High Court, alleging violation of the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

Court-Directed Physical Inspection

The matter was heard at length on 18 and 19 June 2026. Given the controversy over the petitioner's actual place of residence, the bench directed the Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Kedar Dighe, to arrange a physical verification of the address mentioned in the admission form by the concerned authorities. Simultaneously, the petitioner's counsel, Ms. Ahilya Nalawade, was directed to ensure that the petitioner's father remained present at that address and produced all documents evidencing residence there.

Officers of the Education Department visited the address on 19 and 20 June 2026. The Deputy Director of Education submitted a report dated 19 June 2026 and a compilation dated 20 June 2026, taken on record and marked as Exhibits X-1 and X-2. Aadhaar Cards of the petitioner and his father, along with the father's Voter Identity Card, were also tendered and marked collectively as Exhibit X-3.

The inspection findings were stark. The premises had only one bed or cot on the first floor. The ground floor was being used to run a small eating establishment by the petitioner's mother. No material indicating that the petitioner and his family ordinarily resided at the premises was found. The AGP submitted that the address in the father's Voter Identity Card differed from the address furnished in the admission form, and that the premises could not be accepted as satisfactory proof of residence.

Four Conflicting Addresses Across Documents

The bench examined the documents and found a pattern of inconsistency that went beyond any single mapping error. Four different addresses appeared across the documents relied upon by the petitioner:

The admission application form showed an address at Lane No. 1, Samarth Nagar, Grant Road, District Pune, Taluka Hadapsar, Village Kharadi. The Leave and Licence Agreement described Flat No. 101, built-up 250 square feet, first floor, Survey No. 56, Samarth Nagar, Aaple Ghar, Kharadi 411014. The Aadhaar Cards of the petitioner and his father (Exhibit X-3) showed Flat No. 204, Vighnaharta Palace, Survey No. 143A/2/1, Ghawate Wasti, Godbole Wasti Road, Manjari Budruk, Pune – 412307. The father's Voter Identity Card (Exhibit X-3) showed Pet Fote Galli, Amarapur, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar – 414505.

The bench also interacted with the petitioner's father, who was present in court. After considering the inspection reports, photographs, and identity documents, the bench found that the premises could not prima facie be treated as the petitioner's residence.

Why the Bench Rejected the “Mere Technical Discrepancy” Argument

The petitioner's counsel argued that the discrepancies were merely technical and that the original rejection was caused by an auto-generated Google Maps error. The bench declined to accept this framing.

The bench held that it was not possible to accept that a family of three could reside in premises with only one bed or cot. No electricity bills, water bills, gas connection, bank correspondence, ration card, or any other contemporaneous documents had been produced to substantiate continuous residence. The bench placed the burden of establishing residential eligibility squarely on the petitioner and held that “mere assertions regarding errors in the auto-generated Google address cannot substitute proof of actual residence.”

On the broader statutory question, the bench held that the residential requirement under the RTE Act's neighbourhood quota is not an empty formality but an essential eligibility condition. The bench observed that diluting or overlooking this requirement in the absence of satisfactory proof would not only defeat the object of the statutory scheme but could also result in denying admission to another child who genuinely satisfies the neighbourhood conditions.

The submission that the discrepancies were technical was therefore rejected. The bench was satisfied that the authorities had committed no error in rejecting the application for want of satisfactory proof of residence.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs was made.