# Krishna Kumari & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 538
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 6290 of 2025
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kumari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53591
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

C.S.C, Rishabh Tripathi

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the policy decisions of the State
for pairing and merging the school, offend
Article 21-A of the Constitution or any
provisions of the RTE Act and the Rules
framed
by
the
State
Government
thereunder

HEADNOTE
Education - Constitution of India -
Article 21-A - Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
Sections 6, 35, 38 - Uttar Pradesh Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011 - Rule 4(1), (2),
(3) - Pairing of Schools - Government
Orders dated 16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025
-
Writ
petitions
challenged
the
Government
Order
dated
16.06.2025,
wherein directions were issued for taking
steps for pairing of the schools managed
under the supervision and control of the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the
State Government - Validity of - Scope of
Judicial
Review.
7 All. Krishna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
Held:
Scope for judicial review of policy decisions is
very limited and is available only if it is
demonstrated that any fundamental rights are
adversely affected or that the policy is
manifestly arbitrary or tainted with mala fides.
Impugned orders were in furtherance of the
National Education Policy, 2020, which has been
issued in exercise of powers under Section 35
and provides for efficient resourcing and
effective governance through school complexes
and clusters. In terms of the said policy
decision, a decision has been taken through the
impugned orders. There being no challenge to
the National Education Policy, 2020 in the
present case, the impugned orders only being
an action in furtherance of the National
Education Policy, 2020, cannot be subjected to
judicial review in the absence of any challenge
to the foundation, which is the National
Education Policy, 2020, which authorises and
prescribes for consolidation of small schools that
have been rendered economically suboptimal
and operationally complex to run and are posing
a systematic challenge to governance and
management, and thus, on that count itself, the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed. As per
Article 21-A of the Constitution, the mandate is
to provide free and compulsory education to the
children between the ages of six and fourteen
years in such manner as the State may by law
determine. The mandate of Article 21-A cannot
be presumed to mean that such education has
to be provided by the State within a distance of
one kilometre. Merely because, after pairing, the
distance of the educational institution becomes
more than one kilometre, it cannot be said that
there is a violation of rights conferred under
Article 21-A of the Constitution; such contention
merits rejection. On a complete analysis of Rule
4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3), read conjointly, it
is clear that the State Government is bound to
establish schools at the nearest possible place
from a habitation and, in the absence thereof, is
obliged to ensure transportation facilities, etc.,
and
in
conjunction
therewith
identify
neighbourhood schools, whether government or
otherwise. There being no material to the
contrary in respect of guidelines of pairing in the
policy of 2020, which can be said to be arbitrary
or in violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution,
the
impugned
orders
do
not
warrant
interference. Writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 52,
53, 62, 63] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Kerala Aided L.P. and U.P. School Managers
Association v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) No.19008
of 2013 (Ker); Jule Khan Bai & Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil W.P. No.8990 of
2016 (Raj.); Union of India v. Naveen Jindal &
Anr., (2004) 2 SCC 510; Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors.
v. State of Kerala & Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 615;
B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore &
Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1942; Shamsher Singh v.
State of Punjab & Anr., (1974) 2 SCC 831; Delhi
Development Authority & Anr. v. Joint Action
Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors., (2008)
2 SCC 672; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union

## Text

_Characters 0–39,593 of 87,368. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39593 for what follows._

538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the inheritence will be governed by
Section 175 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

16. In the present matter also, the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation has
rightly held that in view of the provisions
contained under Section 175 of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, petitioner/ Jitendra
as well as private respondent (Sharda Devi)
will be entitled to be recorded in the place
of deceased Shanti Devi on the basis of
principle of survivorship as provided under
Section 175 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

17. It is also material to mention that
Consolidation Officer has directed to
record the name of private respondent
(Sharda Devi) only in place of Shanti Devi
but in appeal filed by petitioner/ Jitendra
which was allowed and petitioner as well as
private respondents both were ordered to be
recorded on the basis of principle of
survivorship, as such, there was no
occasion to challenge the appellate order in
revision
as
petitioner
and
private
respondents both were ordered to be
recorded in place of deceased Shanti Devi.

18. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, no interference
is required against the impugned orders
dated 22.5.2024 and 7.12.2019 passed by
the
consolidation
authorities
in
the
proceeding under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act. The Writ B No. 2525 of
2024 filed by petitioner/ Jitendra against
the orders dated 22.5.2024 and 7.12.2019
passed by consolidation authorities in the
proceeding under Section 12 of the
U.P.C.H. Act is dismissed and Writ B No.
318 of 2025 filed by petitioner/ Jitendra for
quashing the proceeding of Rule 109-A of
U.P.C.H. Rules is also dismissed.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 538
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 6290 of 2025
&
Writ C No. 6292 of 2025

Krishna Kumari & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Lalta Prasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari, Ramesh
Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Rishabh Tripathi

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the policy decisions of the State
for pairing and merging the school, offend
Article 21-A of the Constitution or any
provisions of the RTE Act and the Rules
framed
by
the
State
Government
thereunder

HEADNOTE
Education - Constitution of India -
Article 21-A - Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
Sections 6, 35, 38 - Uttar Pradesh Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011 - Rule 4(1), (2),
(3) - Pairing of Schools - Government
Orders dated 16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025
-
Writ
petitions
challenged
the
Government
Order
dated
16.06.2025,
wherein directions were issued for taking
steps for pairing of the schools managed
under the supervision and control of the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari and owned by the
State Government - Validity of - Scope of
Judicial
Review.
7 All. Krishna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
Held:
Scope for judicial review of policy decisions is
very limited and is available only if it is
demonstrated that any fundamental rights are
adversely affected or that the policy is
manifestly arbitrary or tainted with mala fides.
Impugned orders were in furtherance of the
National Education Policy, 2020, which has been
issued in exercise of powers under Section 35
and provides for efficient resourcing and
effective governance through school complexes
and clusters. In terms of the said policy
decision, a decision has been taken through the
impugned orders. There being no challenge to
the National Education Policy, 2020 in the
present case, the impugned orders only being
an action in furtherance of the National
Education Policy, 2020, cannot be subjected to
judicial review in the absence of any challenge
to the foundation, which is the National
Education Policy, 2020, which authorises and
prescribes for consolidation of small schools that
have been rendered economically suboptimal
and operationally complex to run and are posing
a systematic challenge to governance and
management, and thus, on that count itself, the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed. As per
Article 21-A of the Constitution, the mandate is
to provide free and compulsory education to the
children between the ages of six and fourteen
years in such manner as the State may by law
determine. The mandate of Article 21-A cannot
be presumed to mean that such education has
to be provided by the State within a distance of
one kilometre. Merely because, after pairing, the
distance of the educational institution becomes
more than one kilometre, it cannot be said that
there is a violation of rights conferred under
Article 21-A of the Constitution; such contention
merits rejection. On a complete analysis of Rule
4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3), read conjointly, it
is clear that the State Government is bound to
establish schools at the nearest possible place
from a habitation and, in the absence thereof, is
obliged to ensure transportation facilities, etc.,
and
in
conjunction
therewith
identify
neighbourhood schools, whether government or
otherwise. There being no material to the
contrary in respect of guidelines of pairing in the
policy of 2020, which can be said to be arbitrary
or in violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution,
the
impugned
orders
do
not
warrant
interference. Writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 52,
53, 62, 63] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
Kerala Aided L.P. and U.P. School Managers
Association v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) No.19008
of 2013 (Ker); Jule Khan Bai & Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil W.P. No.8990 of
2016 (Raj.); Union of India v. Naveen Jindal &
Anr., (2004) 2 SCC 510; Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors.
v. State of Kerala & Ors., (1986) 3 SCC 615;
B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore &
Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1942; Shamsher Singh v.
State of Punjab & Anr., (1974) 2 SCC 831; Delhi
Development Authority & Anr. v. Joint Action
Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors., (2008)
2 SCC 672; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union
of India & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 664; State of
Maharashtra & Anr. v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha &
Ors., (1971) 2 SCC 410; Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27; State of Odisha & Ors. v.
School Managing Committee of Amaramunda
Government Primary School, W.A. No.417 of
2021 (Ori HC)
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; Uttar
Pradesh
Right
of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2011
List of Keywords
Education; Article 21-A; Right to Education;
Policy decision; Judicial review; Pairing of
schools;
National
Education
Policy
2020;
Fundamental right; Purposive interpretation;
Government Order; Rule 4(1) RTE Rules.
CASE ARISING FROM
Challenging
Government
Orders
dated
16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 issued by Basic
Education Department, regarding pairing of
primary schools.
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties

Advs For Petitioner: Dr. L.P. Misra, Sri
Prafulla Tiwari, Sri Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri
Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Utsav Mishra and Ms.
Manjari.

Advs For Respondents: Sri Anuj Kudesia,
Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Sri Sailendra Kumar Singh, Chief Standing
Counsel,
and
Sri
Ran
Vijay
Singh,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel; Sri
Sandeep Dixit, Senior Advocate, assisted
by Sri Rishabh Tripathi and Sri Arun
Kumar Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L. P. Mishra assisted by Sri
Prafulla Tiwari, the counsel for the petitioner of
Writ C No. - 6290 of 2025 and Sri Gaurav
Mehrotra along with Sri Utsav Misra and Ms.
Manjari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners in Writ C No. 6292 of 2025 as
well as Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Sailendra
Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel
and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State, and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Rishabh Tripathi and
Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no.4.

2. Both the above writ petitions, raises a
common question, as such, are being decided by
means of this common judgment.

3. Both the said writ petitions, challenge
the Government Order dated 16.06.2025
(Annexure no.1) wherein directions have been
issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic
Shiksha Department, for taking steps for pairing
of the schools managed under the supervision
and control of the BSA and owned by the State
Government. The petitions also challenge the
consequential action dated 24.06.2025 wherein
the actual list of the schools, which are being
paired being 105 in number has been issued.

4. Before adverting to the arguments
raised by the petitioner and the respondents, I
deem it appropriate to record the backdrop
leading to issuance of the orders, which are
impugned in the present writ petition. Right to
Education, was held to be a part of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and in pursuance to the
said right being declared as part of Article 21,
in the 86th amendment to the Constitution,
Article 21-A was inserted, which is as under:

"21-A. Right to education. The State
shall provide free and compulsory education to
all children of the age of six to fourteen years in
such manner as the State may, by law,
determine."

5. To give effect to the mandate of Article
21-A, the Central Government framed the 'Act'
known as 'Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009', hereinafter
referred to as the 'RTE Act, 2009'. The
statement of object and reason for enacting the
said Act was that universal elementary
education is essential for strengthening the
social fabric of the democracy through the role
of universal elementary education and to give
effect to the directive principles of State Policy
enumerated in the Constitution prescribing that
the State shall endeavour to provide free and
compulsory education to all the children up to
the age of fourteen years and to further give
effect to the mandate of Article 21-A of the
Constitution, the 'Act' in question was enacted.
The Act in question is a child centric and is
aimed at achieving the goals as laid down by
Article 21-A. Section 2-A of the RTE Act, 2009
defines 'appropriate Government' as used in the
Act and is as under :

`
"2. Definitions - In this Act, unless
the context otherwise requires -

(a)
"appropriate
Government"
means-

(i) in relation to a school established,
owned
or
controlled
by
the
Central
Government, or the administrator of the Union
7 All. Krishna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
territory, having no legislature, the Central
Government;

(ii) in relation to a school, other than
the school referred to in sub-clause (i),
established within the territory-

(A) a State, the State Government;

(B)
a
Union
territory
having
legislature, the Government of that Union
territory;"

Section 2(c) defines 'child' which means
male and female child of the age of six to
fourteen years.

Section
2(f)
defines
'elementary
education', which means the education from
first class to eighth class;

Section 2(h) defines 'local authority',
which is as under :

"2(h) local authority" means a
Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council
or Zila Parishad or Nagar Panchayat or
Panchayat, by whatever name called, and
includes such other authority or body having
administrative control over the school or
empowered by or under any law for the time
being in force to function as a local authority in
any city, town or village;

Section 2(n) defines 'school', which is as
under :

"2(n)
"school"
means
any
recognised
school
imparting
elementary
education and include-

(i) a school established, owned or
controlled by the appropriate Government or a
local authority;

(ii) an aided school receiving aid or
grants to meet whole or part of its expenses
from the appropriate Government or the local
authority;

(iii) a school belonging to specified
category; and

(iv) an unaided school not receiving
any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses
from the appropriate Government or the local
authority;"

Section 3 of the said Act declares the
intent and establishes a right in favour of every
child in between the age of six to fourteen
years. Section 3 is quoted herein below:

"3. Right of child to free and
compulsory education. - (1) Every child of the
age of six to fourteen years, including a child
referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) of Section
2, shall have the right to free and compulsory
education in a neighbourhood school till the
completion of his or her elementary education.
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no child
shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges
or expenses which may prevent him or her from
pursuing
and
completing
the
elementary
education:

. . ...

(3) A child with disability referred to
in sub-clause (A) of clause (ee) of Section 2
shall, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 (1 of 1996), and a child referred to in
sub-clauses (B) and (C) of clause (ee) of
Section 2, have the same rights to pursue free
and compulsory elementary education which
children with disabilities have under the
provisions of Chapter V of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995:

Provided that a child with "multiple
disabilities" referred to in clause (h) and a
child with "severe disability" referred to in
clause (o) of Section 2 of the National Trust for
Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral
Palsy,
Mental
Retardation
and
Multiple
Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999) may also
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have
the
right
to
opt
for
home-based
education."

It is also essential to note the mandate of
Section 5 of the said Act, which is as under:

"5. Right of transfer to other
school. - (1) Where in a school, there is no
provision
for
completion
of
elementary
education, a child shall have a right to seek
transfer to any other school, excluding the
school specified in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of
clause (n) of Section 2, for completing his or
her elementary education.

(2) Where a child is required to move
from one school to another, either within a
State or outside, for any reason whatsoever,
such child shall have a right to seek transfer to
any other school, excluding the school specified
in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of
Section 2, for completing his or her elementary
education.

(3) For seeking admission in such
other school, the Head-teacher or in-charge of
the school where such child was last admitted,
shall immediately issue the transfer certificate:

Provided that delay in producing
transfer certificate shall not be a ground for
either delaying or denying admission in such
other school:

Provided further that the Headteacher or in-charge of the school delaying
issuance of transfer certificate shall be liable
for disciplinary action the service rules
applicable to him or her."

Section 6 of the said Act confers the duty
of appropriate government and local authority
to establish school. Section 6 is as under:

"6. Duty of appropriate Government
and local authority to establish school. - For
carrying out the provisions of this Act, the
appropriate Government and the local authority
shall establish, within such area or limits of
neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school,
where it is not so established, within a period of
three years from the commencement of this Act.

The
share
of
financial
and
other
responsibilities have been prescribed under
Section 7, which is as under:

"7. Sharing of financial of other
responsibilities. - (1) The Central Government
and
the
State
Governments
shall
have
concurrent responsibility for providing funds
for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) The Central Government shall
prepare the estimates of capital and recurring
expenditure for the implementation of the
provisions of the Act.

(3) The Central Government shall
provide to the State Governments, as grants-inaid of revenues, such percentage of expenditure
referred to in sub-section (2) as it may
determine, from time to time, in consultation
with the State Governments.

(4) The Central Government may
make a request to the President to make a
reference to the Finance Commission under
sub-clause (d) of Clause (3) of Article 280 to
examine the need for additional resources to be
provided to any State Government so that the
said State Government may provide its share of
funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act.

(5)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained
in
sub-section
(4),
the
State
Government shall, taking into consideration the
sums provided by the Central Government to a
State Government under sub-section (3), and its
other resources, be responsible to provide funds
for implementation of the provisions of the Act.

(6) The Central Government shall-

(a) develop a framework of national
curriculum with the help of academic authority
specified under Section 29;

(b) develop and enforce standards
for training of teachers;
7 All. Krishna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543

(c) provide technical support and
resources
to
the
State
Government
for
promoting innovations, researches, planning
and capacity building."

The duties of appropriate government
have been prescribed under Section 8 of the
Act, which are as under:

8.
Duties
of
appropriate
Government.- The appropriate Government
shall-

(a) provide free and compulsory
elementary education to every child:

Provided that where a child is
admitted by his or her parents or guardian, as
the case may be, in a school other than a school
established, owned, controlled or substantially
financed
by
funds
provided
directly
or
indirectly by the appropriate Government or a
local authority, such child or his or her parents
or guardian, as the case may be, shall not be
entitled to make a claim for reimbursement of
expenditure incurred on elementary education
of the child in such other school.

Explanation-The term "compulsory
education" means obligation of the appropriate
Government to-

(i) provide free elementary education
to every child of the age of six to fourteen
years; and

(ii) ensure compulsory admission,
attendance and completion of elementary
education by every child of the age of six to
fourteen years;

(b)
ensure
availability
of
a
neighbourhood school as specified in Section 6;

(c) ensure that the child belonging to
weaker section and the child belonging to
disadvantaged group are not discriminated
against and prevented from pursuing and
completing elementary education on any
grounds;

(d) provide infrastructure including
school building, teaching staff and learning
equipment;

(e) provide special training facility
specified in Section 4;

(f) ensure and monitor admission,
attendance and completion of elementary
education by every child;

(g) ensure good quality elementary
education conforming to the standards and
norms specified in the Schedule;

(h) ensure timely prescribing of
curriculum and courses of study for elementary
education; and

(i) provide training facility for
teachers."

The duties of local authorities, parents and
guardians are defined under Section 9 & 10 of
the said Act.

It is also essential to notice the mandate of
Section 12 which prescribes for extent of
school's responsibility for carrying out the
intent of Article 21-A and the purpose for
which the Act was enacted. Section 12(1) reads
as under:

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

(a) specified in sub-clause (i) of
clause (n) of Section 2 shall provide free and
compulsory
elementary
education
to
all
children admitted therein;

(b) specified in sub-clause (ii) of
clause (n) of Section 2 shall provide free and
compulsory elementary education to such
proportion of children admitted therein as its
annual recurring aid or grants so received
bears to its annual recurring expenses, subject
to a minimum of twenty-five per cent;
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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:"

6. Other restrictions are prescribed from
Section 13 till Section 28 of the Act and are
basically related to the duties prescribed in
school, the teachers etc., which are not much
relevant for the purpose of the lis being decided
by means of the present writ petition.

7. It is also essential to notice the mandate
of Section 35 and 38 of the Act, which
conferred the power on the Central Government
to
issue
guidelines
to
the
appropriate
government as well as the rule making power
conferred upon the governments to make the
rules. Section 39 of the Act empowers the
Central Government to remove difficulties that
arise during the course of implementation of the
provisions of the Act.

8. It is also essential to notice the schedule
amended to the Act which has been heavily
relied upon during the course of the argument.
Section 35, 38, 39 & schedule to the Act are
quoted herein below:

"35. Power to issue directions: (1)
The Central Government may issue such
guidelines to the appropriate Government or, as
the case may be, the local authority, as it deems
fit for the purpose of implementation of the
provisions of this Act.

(2) The appropriate Government
may issue guidelines and give such directions,
as it deems fit, to the local authority or the
School Management Committee regarding
implementation of the provisions of this Act.

(3) The local authority may issue
guidelines and give such directions, as it deems
fit, to the School Management Committee
regarding implementation of the provisions of
this Act.

38.
Power
of
appropriate
government
to
make
rules.
-(1)
The
appropriate Government may, by notification,
make rules, for carrying out the provisions of
this Act.

(2)
In
particular,
and
without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
powers, such rules may provide for all or any of
the following matters, namely:-

(a) the manner of giving special
training and the time-limit thereof, under first
proviso to Section 4;

(b)
the
area
or
limits
for
establishment of a neighbourhood school, under
Section 6;

(c) the manner of maintenance of
records of children up to the age of fourteen
years, under clause (d) of Section 9;

(d) the manner and extent of
reimbursement of expenditure, under subsection (2) of Section 12;

(e)
any
other
document
for
determining the age of child under sub-section
(1) of Section 14;

(f) the extended period for admission
and the manner of completing study if admitted
after the extended period, under Section 15;

(fa) the manner and the conditions
subject to which a child may be held back under
sub-section (3) of Section 16;]

(g) the authority, the form and
manner of making application for certificate of
recognition, under sub-section (1) of Section
18;

(h) the form, the period, the manner
and the conditions for issuing certificate of
7 All. Krishna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
recognition, under sub-section (2) of Section
18;

(i) the manner of giving opportunity
of hearing under second proviso to sub-section
(3) of Section 18;

(j)
the
other
functions
to
be
performed by School Management Committee
under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section
21;

(k) the manner of preparing School
Development Plan under sub-section (1) of
Section 22;

(l)
the
salary
and
allowances
payable to, and the terms and conditions of
service of, teacher, under sub-section (3) of
Section 23;

(m) the duties to be performed by the
teacher under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of
Section 24;

(n)
the
manner
of
redressing
grievances of teachers under sub-section (3) of
Section 24.

(o) the form and manner of awarding
certificate
for
completion
of
elementary
education under sub-section (2) of Section 30;

(p) the authority, the manner of its
constitution and the terms and conditions
therefor, under sub-section (3) of Section 31;

(q) the allowances and other terms
and conditions of appointment of Members of
the National Advisory Council under subsection (3) of Section 33;

(r) the allowances and other terms
and conditions of appointment of Members of
the State Advisory Council under sub-section
(3) of Section 34.

(3) Every rule made under this Act
and every notification issued under Sections 20
and 23 by the Central Government shall be laid,
as soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a
total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more
successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of
the session immediately following the session or
the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses
agree in making any modification in the rule or
notification or both Houses agree that the rule
or notification should not be made, the rule or
notification shall thereafter have effect only in
such modified form or be of no effect, as the
case may be; so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without
prejudice to the validity of anything previously
done under that rule or notification.

(4) Every rule or notification made
by the State Government under this Act shall be
laid, as soon as may be after it is made; before
the State Legislatures.

39. Power of Central Government to
remove difficulties (1) If any difficulty arises in
giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the
Central Government may, by order, published
in the Official Gazette, make such provisions
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act,
as may appear to it to be necessary for
removing the difficulty:Provided that no order
shall be made under this section after the expiry
of three years from the commencement of the
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education (Amendment) Act, 2012.(2) Every
order made under this section shall be laid, as
soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of Parliament."

THE SCHEDULE

[See Section 19 and 25]

Norms and Standards for
a School

Sl.
No.
Item
Norms and Standards
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.
Numbe
rof
teacher
s:

(a) For
first
class to
fifth
class
Admitted children
Numbe
r
of
teacher
s

Up to sixty
Two

Between sixty-one to
ninety
Three

Between ninety-one to
one hundred and twenty
Four

Between one hundred
and twenty-one to two
hundred
Five

Above one hundred and
fifty children
Five
plus
one
Headteacher

Above
two
hundred
children
PupilTeache
r Ratio
(exclud
ing
Headteacher
) shall
not
exceed
forty.

(b) For
sixth
class to
eighth
class
(1) At least one teacher per
class so that there shall be at least
one teacher each for-

 (I)
Science and Mathematics;

 (ii)
Social Studies;

 (iii)
Languages.

(2) At least one teacher for
every thirty-five children

(3) Where admission of
children is above one hundred-

 (i)
a full time head-teacher;

 (ii)
part time instructors for-

(A) Art Education;

(B) Health and Physical Education;

(C) Work Education.
1A.
Numbe
r
of
Special
Educat
ion
Teache
rs
for
childre
n with
special
needs

(a) For
first
class to
fifth
class
One Special Education Teacher for
every ten pupils with disabilities
enrolled

(b) For
sixth
class to
eighth
class
One Special Education Teacher for
every fifteen pupils with disabilities
enrolled

Note 1 : One school and one
(minimum)
special
education
teacher norms remains intact.

Note 2 : Adhoc or special provision
of
Itinerant
Special
Education
Teacher
under
special
circumstances as per the Pupil
Teacher Ratio specified above may
be done in cluster of schools in case
of-
7 All. Krishna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547

 (i) adequate number of special
education teachers are not available,

 (ii) school is a single teacher
school having only one general
education teacher.

This may be done with the
conditions that the allotment of,-

 (i) not more than four schools;
and

 (ii) distance between any two
allotted schools

should not be more than five
kilometers
so
that
Special
Education Teacher gets the required
time
to
provide
necessary
interventions at each school level.

Note 3 : The condition of number of
schools and distance covered under
Note 2 shall remain intact till
minimum of fifty per cent of the
Pupil Teacher Ratio is maintained
and, the Special Education Teacher
and schools make effort to bring
more students with disabilities to
classrooms to maintain required
Pupil Teacher Ratio.

In case the minimum fifty per cent
of Pupil Teacher Ratio is not
achieved, one by one nearby
schools shall be added.]
2.
Buildin
g
All-weather
building
consisting
ofâ€"

 (i) at least one class-room for
every teacher and an officer-cumstore-cum Head teacher's room;

 (ii) barrier-free access;

 (iii) separate toilets for boys and
girls;

 (iv) safe and adequate drinking
water facility to all children;

 (v) a kitchen where mid-day
meal is cooked in the school;

 (vi) playground;

 (vii) arrangements for securing
the school building by boundary
wall or fencing.
3.
Minim
um
numbe
r
of
workin
g
days/in
structio
nal
hours
in
an
acade
mic
year
 (i) two hundred working days
for first class to fifth class;

 (ii) two hundred and twenty
working days for sixth class to
eighth class;

 (iii) eight hundred instructional
hours per academic year for first
class to fifth class;

 (iv) one thousand instructional
hours per academic year for sixth
class to eighth class.
4.
Minim
um
numbe
r
of
workin
g hours
per
week
for the
teacher
Forty-five
teaching
including
preparation hours.
5.
Teachi
ng
learnin
g
equipm
ent
Shall be provided to each class as
required.
6.
Library
There shall be a library in each
school
providing
newspaper,
magazines
and
books
on
all
subjects, including story-books..
7.
Play
Shall be provided to each class as
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
materia
l,
games
and
sports
equipm
ent
required.

9. It is also essential to notice that in the
backdrop of the statutory provisions under the
RTE Act, Rules have been framed by the
Central Government known as 'Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Rules, 2010. Similarly, in exercise of power
conferred by virtue of Section 38 of the RTE
Act, 2009 the State Government has also
framed Rules, known as 'The Uttar Pradesh
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011, hereinafter referred to
as 'U.P. Rules, 2011'. Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) &
Rule 4(3) are quoted herein below:

"4.
Areas
or
limits
of
neighbourhood (section-6) - (1) The area or
limit of neighbourhood within which a school
has to be established by the Committee
authorized by the State Government, shall be as
under -

(a) in respect of children in classes IV, a school shall be established in habitation
which has no school within a distance of 1.0
Km. and has population of at least 300;

(b) in respect of children in classes
VI-VIII, a school shall be established in
habitation which has no school within a
distance of 3.0 km. and has population of at
least 800.

Explanation: For the purposes of
this rule the expression "Committee authorized
by the State Government" shall mean the
Committee established under section-10 or
section-10 A, as the case may be, of the Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972.

(2) For children from such areas
where it is not possible to provide school within
the radius of neighbourhood specified under
sub-rule (1), the State Government shall make
adequate
arrangements,
such
as
free
transportation, residential facilities etc. in
relaxation of the provisions specified under
sub-rule (1).

(3) The local authority i.e. Gram
Panchayat/Nagar Nigam/Nagar Palika/Nagar
Panchayat as the case may be shall identify a
neighbourhood school where children can be
admitted and make such information public for
each habitation within its jurisdiction."

10. It is also essential to notice that in
exercise of power under section 35, the Central
Government has issued a National Education
Policy 2020, hereinafter referred to as 'NEP
2020' prescribing for various measures to be
taken in the interest of the children and for
improving the infrastructure etc. of the basic
schools, to give effect to the mandate of the Act
as well as the constitutional mandate cast upon
the government. It is also essential to notice that
after the issuance of the National Education
Policy, various Government Orders have been
issued, forming committees for implementation
of the guidelines issued in the NEP 2020.

11. The learned Additional Advocate
General Sri Anuj Kudesia has also placed
before this Court the minutes of conference of
Chief Secretaries held on various occasions,
wherein, the intent to implement the NEP 2020
was reiterated with further directions to take
adequate steps. He also places on record
material to demonstrate that in furtherance of
the said steps, pilot project has been undertaken
by the State of U.P. in the district of Gautam
Buddh Nagar. It is also brought on record that
the guidelines with regard to the consolidation
of schools have been undertaken.

12. In the light of the said, statutory
provisions quoted herein above, I proceed to
record the respective arguments raised by the
parties, in support of their challenge and in
support of the defense by the State.

13. Dr. L. P. Misra appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, argues that in terms of the
7 All. Krishna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549
mandate of Section 6 of the Act, the duty is cast
upon
the
appropriate
government/local
authority to establish within such area or limits
of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a
school, within a period of three years from the
commencement of the Act. He argues that the
Kerala High Court, while dealing with the
mandate of Section 6 of the Act, had held that
for the purposes of classification, the respective
class in which the students is to study, is to be
taken as a criteria and not the school as a whole,
as has been done by means of the Government
Order. Extensive reliance is placed by him on
the judgment of the Kerala High Court, in the
case of the Kerala Aided L.P and U.P. School,
Managers Association vs. State of Kerala;
W.P. (C) No.19008 of 2013 (A) decided on
17.12.2015. He further draws my attention to
the word 'neighbourhood' as used in Rule 4(a)
of the U.P. Rules to argue that in terms of the
prescription which is in the form of Rules made
by the State Government, it is a duty to
establish a school in habitation which has no
school within a distance of one kilometre and
has a population of at least 300. Similar duty is
cast upon the State Government in respect of
children who are studying in class sixth to eight
to establish a school within a distance of three
kilometres and has a population of 800. He,
thus, argues that in terms of Article 21-A,
which itself includes the phrase as may be
prescribed 'which are in the form of Act
enacted by the Central Government and the
Rules framed by the Central Government as
well as the State Government', it is incumbent
to establish a school within a distance of one
kilometre, where the population of habitation is
300. He further argues that on one hand, the
State Government is yet to take steps to fulfil
the mandate cast upon it by virtue of Article 21A, the RTE Act as well as the State Rules, on
the other hand, the impugned Policy decision,
wipes away the schools which are already
established and are existing leading to a lot of
inconvenience to the children, who would now
have to attend the paired school which is at a
distance of more than one kilometre, which
according to him, is bad in law. It is specifically
emphasised by Dr. L. P. Misra that Article 21A, on its plain reading would include, the
manner as laid down under Article 21-A which
has to be read as a whole.

14. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Writ-C
No. 6292 of 2025 also draws my attention to the
mandate of Article 21-A, which he argues, is in
furtherance of the directive principles of State
Policy. He also draws my attention to Article
51-A of the Constitution, which prescribes for
the fundamental duties. Article 51-A (k) is
quoted herein below:

"51-A. Fundamental duties - It shall
be the duty of every citizen of India-

(k) who is a parent or guardian to
provide opportunities for education to his child
or, as the case may be, ward between the age of
six and fourteen years.

15. He further argues that the executive
instructions, impugned in the present writ
petition, particularly Annexure no.1, is neither a
Government Order, nor comes within the
definition of law as prescribed under Article 13,
particularly as, it seeks to take away the rights
which are guaranteed under Article 21-A, the
same being a part of Chapter III. He argues that
it is clearly well settled that, the fundamental
rights, in the present case guaranteed by Article
21-A, cannot be amended except in accordance
with law and certainly not through the executive
instructions as is being done.

16. To buttress his submission that Article
21-A, is being violated, he argues that in view
of the paring of the school, the same would
result in closure of the schools in which, the
students are studying at present and, thus they
would have to attend the schools which are at a
distance of more than one kilometre, which
according to him, is contrary to the rights
conferred upon the children under Article 21-A,
read in conjunction with the Rules framed by
the State particularly Rule 4(1)(a) of the U.P.
Rules. The judgments relied upon by the parties
shall be dealt subsequently.

17. Controverting the arguments of the
petitioner, as recorded above, Sri Anuj Kudesia,
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the learned Additional Advocate General argues
that the entire case, in challenging the executive
instructions, which according to him is a
Government Order is misplaced as no such
action is being taken so as to deny the rights as
are guaranteed under Article 21-A, read with
the mandate of RTE Act. He argues that in
terms of the intent of the Central Government
as expressed in the NEP 2020, which included,
action for paring in consolidation of the schools
to optimise the use of human resources and
other resources, the present government order
has been issued. He further argues that even in
terms of the prayers made, the only challenge to
the Government Order is to that part of the
order, which prescribes for paring of the
schools. He argues that even after the paring,
the State Government is bound to ensure that
free and compulsory education is provided to all
children including the petitioners herein for
which requisite directions have been issued.