# Khwaja Asher (Minor) Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1434
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 34106 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khwaja-asher-minor-khwaja-shamshad-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54341
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 1434
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 34106 of 2025

Khwaja Asher (Minor) Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a child seeking admission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 can be denied consideration merely because the application
was submitted manually and not through the online portal.
HEADNOTE
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, s.12(1)(c) - Constitution of India,
Art. 21-A - Admission under 25% quota for children belonging to weaker sections and
disadvantaged groups - Petitioner unable to upload the application form online - Manual
application submitted before Basic Siksha Adhikari - State contended that for the purposes of
admission for the Academic Session 2023-24, the procedure contemplated was only through
online applications - Sustainability:
Held: Government Order dated 03.03.2016 specifically provides that where the parents are
unable to apply through online mode, it casted a duty on the District Basic Siksha Adhikari to
facilitate the filing of the manual application before him - Letter dated 20.01.2017 clearly states
that as per the Government Order, the online procedure is "also" being implemented facilitating
online application - Communication dated 30.01.2023 merely contemplates that an online
application and lottery system has been started but does not indicate that Government Order
dated 03.03.2016 has been amended or restrictions have been placed for making applications
manually through Basic Siksha Adhikari - Since the Government Order dated 03.03.2016 was
applicable for Academic Session 2023-24, it cannot be said that there was change in procedure
subsequently. Court held that if the application under Section 12(1)(c) is mandated to be submitted only
through online portal, the very object of the constitutional amendment and the Directive Principles of State
Policy to provide free and compulsory education to children who are under privileged and are unable to
complete their elementary education shall stand defeated - The very object of the Act, 2009 shall stand
defeated if parents who are unable to apply through online mode are restrained from even making an
application manually - Argument of the State that the application ought to have been made only through
online mode rejected - Court directed that if applications are to be insisted through online mode only, the
State Government must take upon itself the onerous duty to facilitate parents to file online applications
through the office of Basic Siksha Adhikari. - State Government directed to consider issuance of a Standard
Operating Procedure incorporating guidelines for processing online application forms through the office of
Basic Siksha Adhikari for parents incapable of applying online for benefit of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009
[Paras 12, 13, 18, 21]
4 All. Khwaja Asher (Minor) Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1435
In the instant case the Respondent-Basic Siksha Adhikari directed to forthwith process the application of the
petitioner [Paras 19] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Nil

List of Acts
Constitution of India;
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
List of Keywords
Article 21-A; Free and compulsory education; Weaker sections; Disadvantaged groups; Section 12(1)(c);
Nursery admission; Online application; Manual application; District Basic Siksha Adhikari; Government Order
dated 03.03.2016; Educational rights; Neighbourhood school; 25% reservation; Elementary education;
Standard Operating Procedure.
CASE ARISING FROM
Petition filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, to admit the petitioner
(minor) in class-Nursery giving the benefit of Section 12(1)(c) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad.
Advs. for the Respondents: C.S.C., Dharam Raj.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad, Petitioner representing Khwaja Asher (minor) and
Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to admit the petitioner in Class Nursery under Section 12(1)(c) of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,
2009'). For ready reference, Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009 is reproduced below:

 "12. Extent of school's responsibility for free and compulsory education.?(1) For the
purposes of this Act, a school,?

 (c) specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 shall admit in class I, to
the extent of at least twenty-five per cent of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker
section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory
elementary education till its completion:
1436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Provided that where a school specified in clause (n) of section 2 imparts pre-school
education, the provisions of clauses (a) to (c) shall apply for admission to such pre-school
education."

3. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied manually in the office of the Basic
Siksha Adhikari, Prayagraj along with the letter dated 05.04.2023, expressing his inability to
upload the form online, and therefore had requested the Basic Siksha Adhikari, Prayagraj to submit
the same as per the provisions of the Government Order dated 03.03.2016. He has relied upon the
Government Order dated 03.03.2016, wherein it has been provided that for admission, the parents
of the child can apply in the office of District Basic Siksha Adhikari and further has relied upon the
notification dated 06.02.2017 issued by the Additional Project Director, wherein also under Clause
2(d), it has been provided that for any reason an application cannot be made online, under the said
circumstances, the same can be made through Block Siksha Adhikari. For ready reference, Section
2(d) of the notification dated 06.02.2017 is reproduced below:

"2. आवेदन पत्र का प्रे षण:-
(क) ............
(घ) ििभभावकों को ऑन लाईन आवेदन हेतु प्र ोत् िा ि हत ि कया जायेगा, तथाि प ियद ि कन् ं
कारणों िे िकतपय
ििभभावकों द्व ा रा प्र वेश हेतु ऑफ लाईन आवेदन ि कया जाता है, तो ऐिे प्र ाप् त आवेदन पत्रों
को िि ि न्ध त
खण्ड ि शक्षा ििधकार के माध् य म िे ित्या ि पत कराकर वेब पोटलत पर िपलोड करने क
ि जम्मे दार िि ि न्ध त
ि जला बेि िक ि शक्षा ििधकार क होग ।

"4. In pursuance of the order of this court dated 09.04.2026, an affidavit of respondent no.2
has also been filed along with a copy of Government Order dated 03.03.2016 (wrongly transcribed
as 03.03.2018 in the notification dated 30.01.2023) has been filed wherein it is provided that it is
the duty of the District Basic Siksha Adhikari to forward the manual application, in case, the
parents are not able to upload the same online. It also records that no child can be denied admission
for whatsoever reason, as per the mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009. It also provides that
the admission has to be made in the school which is situated in the neighboring area or nearest to
the residence of the child, in case schools are not available in the block in which the family resides.

5. Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the letter of the
Special Secretary to the State Project Director (Education For All) dated 20.01.2017, and submits
that as per the Government Order dated 03.03.2016, the procedure for application under Section
12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009, has been made online.

6. However, a perusal of Paragraph no.3, of the letter dated 20.01.2017, clearly states that
as per the Government order, the online procedure is "also" being implemented, facilitating online
application. For ready reference, Paragraph No.3 is quoted below:
4 All. Khwaja Asher (Minor) Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1437
3- इि िंबंध में में मुझे यह कहने का ि नदेश हु आ है ि क उक्त शािनादेशों में 7 ि नधार्ि रत
वतमातन प्र ि क्र या कोऑन लाईन भ ि कए जाने का ि नणयत ि लया गया है। उक्त कायर् ित्यन् त महत् व
पूणर् है। कृपया इिे िमयबद्ध रू पिे कराने के ि लए िपने ि् त र िे यथोि चत कायवातह ि कया जाना
िुि िनि त करें। उक्त कायर् के ि लए आप पूणततःउत्त रदाय हों गे।"
7. Thereafter, he places reliance on the letter dated 30.01.2023, to contend that for the
purposes of admission for the Academic Session 2023-24, the procedure contemplated is only
through online applications. Bare reading of the communication dated 30.01.2023, itself
demonstrates that a note was made with respect to Government Order dated 03.03.2016 (wrongly
transcribed as 03.03.2018 in the notification dated 30.01.2023), wherein it merely contemplates that
an online application and lottery system has been started; but it does not in any manner indicate that
the earlier Government Order dated 03.03.2016, has been amended or restrictions have been
placed, for making applications manually through Basic Siksha Adhikari. Since the Government
Order dated 03.03.2016, was applicable for the academic Session 2023-24, as evident from the
letter dated 30.01.2023, it also cannot be said that there was change in procedure subsequently, as
the same would not apply retrospectively.

8. At this juncture, the court also take note of the statement of objects and reasons and the
86th Amendment Act, 2002; whereby, Article 21-A has been inserted in the Constitution of India,
for making provision for the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education. It casts an
obligation on the appropriate Government to provide and ensure admission, attendance and
completion of elementary education. It provides that every child has a right to be provided full time
elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality, in a formal school which satisfies
certain essential norms and standards.

9. The Directive Principles of State Policy, which is part of the Constitution of India, also
lays down that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all the children up to the
age of 14 years.

10. The Statement of Object and Reasons, takes note of the fact that the number of
children, particular children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections, who drop out of
school before completing the compulsory elementary education, remains very large.

11. If the argument of the State is accepted, and the application which is to be made under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009; is mandated to be submitted only through online portal, this
court is afraid that the very object of the constitutional amendment and the Directive Principles of
State Policy, to provide free and compulsory education to children who are under privileged and
are unable to complete their elementary education, shall stand defeated.

12. It is perhaps in view of the aforesaid objectives, the Government Order 03.03.2016,
specifically provides that where the parents are unable to apply through online mode, it casted a
duty on the District Basic Siksha Adhikari to facilitate the filing of the manual application
application before him, to enable the parents to apply for the provision of free and compulsory
education, to his child.
1438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. The very object of the Act, 2009 shall stand defeated, if the parents who are unable to
apply through online mode, are put to restrain by not even making an application manually; and as
such the argument of the State that the application ought to have been made only through online
mode cannot be accepted; and is accordingly rejected.

14. Before parting with the judgment, this court also takes note of the fact that in affidavit
dated 24.04.2026 filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein on a query being raised by the court,
in Para-13 of the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that for the Academic Session 2024-25 out of
total 3760 children, who were allotted schools, only 2412 children took admission; and similarly,
for the Academic Session 2025-26, out of total 3862 children, only 2527 children took admission
i.e. more than 1300 children did not take admission, in both academic sessions.

15. The said fact is indicative of an inherent defect in the implementation of the benefits of
the Act, 2009 and though the children are aspiring to seek the benefit of Section 12(1)(c) of the
Act, 2009; but due to the defect in the allotment of schools, thousands of children are not able to
take the benefit of the Act, 2009. The Government must also look into the reasons and should
provide some remedial measure, so that the benefit is extended to maximum students. The
allotment, should be made accordingly, so that children are encouraged to take admission and not
forfeit the same.

16. I may also give reference to the data collated, and brought on record, in pursuance of
the orders of this court, by way of the affidavit dated 24.04.2026, which indicates that in District
Prayagraj, for the Academic Session, 2025-26, some schools have given admission under the
benefit of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009, to a almost negligible number of students and does not
meet the criteria of 25% admission; for example in Ananta Devi Girls Inter College, only one
student has been given the benefit; in Astha Vidya Mandir, only two students have been given the
benefit; in Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, only four students, and similarly the numbers are between 1 to 4 in
each school is overwhelming in the entire list, brought on record by the respondents.

17. The court is also conscious of the fact that online mechanism may bring transparency
and reduce the human inputs, which may invariably attract some irregular practices, with respect to
allotment of schools; but that alone cannot be the basis of prohibiting any manual application;
considering that majority of students and family are those who are underprivileged and
disadvantaged groups, who may not always make an application online. Also the fact that none of
the schools are meeting the criteria of providing 25% such admissions.

18. However, in case the applications are to be insisted through online mode only, the State
Government must also take upon itself, the onerous duty to facilitate the parents, to file online
application through the office of Basic Siksha Adhikari; and any other method, would defeat the
very purpose of the Act, 2009.

19. In view of the aforesaid, Respondent no.2 - Basic Siksha Adhikari, Prayagraj is
directed to forthwith process the application of the petitioner within a period of one week from
today.
4 All. Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1439
20. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the Respondent
No.2, so that needful may be done and the academic session which is about to ensue, is not lost.

21. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to Respondent No.1 to
consider the observation and opinion of this court more specifically stated in Paragraph 12 to 19 ;
and it shall be expected from the Respondent No.1 to further circulate this judgment to all the
District Basic Siksha Adhikari, in the State of U.P., within a period of three weeks from today, for
necessary compliance, and if deems fit, to issue a separate "standard operating procedure",
incorporating the guidelines for processing the online applications form, through the office of Basic
Siksha Adhikari for those parents, who are incapable of applying online for the benefit of Section
12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009, since belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups; and for
want of knowledge, expertise or facility, to apply online.

22. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1439
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 34909 of 2023

Smt. Pushpa Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether employees of essential service departments such as electricity, water supply, telephone, and police,
who discharged duties during the COVID-19 pandemic, are entitled to ex-gratia compensation under the State
Government's scheme when they died due to COVID-19 infection?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 14, 21, 226: - Writ Petition under Article 226 - for quashing
impugned rejection order - whereby State Govt. rejected the ex-gratia compensation - petitioner's husband
was assigned duties to maintain electricity supply during pandemic - who died due to COVID-19 infection -
claim of compensation under COVID-19 ex-gratia compensation scheme, to the dependent of deceased
employee of electricity department who died due to COVID-19 infection - claim rejected on ground that
electricity duty not covered under "COVID duty" - Legal question before High Court that, whether essential
service employees (like electricity, water, telephone, police) fall within scope of "COVID duty" under
Government Order dated 11.04.2020 - Court finds that essential service employees contributed directly to
containment, treatment, and protection during pandemic - narrow interpretation by State arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14 and 21 - held - employees of essential services are deemed to be on COVID duty -
therefore, rejection order unsustainable - quashed - writ petition allowed - direction issued to release
ex-gratia compensation within 30 days
(Para - 7, 12, 13, 14)