Bombay High Court Upheld Rejection of Student RTE Admission Over Residence Proof
The Bombay High Court in Mumbai on June 26 upheld the rejection of a minor student's school admission under the Right to Education (RTE) quota for the 2026–27 academic year. A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad ruled that valid proof of residence is a mandatory eligibility condition that cannot be waived.
The decision came after education authorities disputed the student's claimed residence in the Kharadi neighbourhood of Pune. The petitioner, a minor student represented by his father, had challenged the May 2, 2026, decision of the Education Officer and the Deputy Director of Education to reject his admission application.
The family claimed they had been residing in a flat in Kharadi since August 6, 2025, under a leave and licence agreement from the child's grandmother. The petitioner argued that the flat was approximately 950 metres from the school, making him eligible for the RTE neighbourhood quota. They contended that the rejection of the online application was due to an auto-generated Google Maps error and requested physical verification of the address.
To resolve the dispute, the Bombay High Court directed education officials to personally inspect the premises. Officials conducted visits on June 19 and June 20.
The inspection report submitted to the court revealed that the address could not be treated as the petitioner's actual residence. According to the state's report, the ground floor of the premises housed a small eating establishment run by the petitioner's mother, while the first floor contained only a single bed. The authorities also noted discrepancies between the address listed on the admission form and the address on the father's voter identity card.
Based on these findings and an interaction with the petitioner's father, the High Court bench concluded that the premises did not constitute the petitioner's residence. The court stated that the burden of proving residential eligibility rests entirely on the petitioner, and assertions of Google Maps errors cannot replace actual proof.
The bench dismissed the petition without imposing costs, noting that relaxing the residency requirement could deprive other genuinely eligible local children of quota slots.
