The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia, dismissed an appeal by a mother seeking admission for her child to a particular private school under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.

The Bench upheld the earlier decisions, finding no reason to overturn the Single Judge’s ruling. It stated that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act aims to promote social inclusion and equal opportunity, but does not entitle parents to insist on admission in their preferred school.

In this case, the child was selected through a computerised lottery conducted by the Directorate of Education for admission to a private school. However, when the school did not admit the child, the authorities offered a place at another school, which was among the parent's preferred options and located at a comparable distance. The parent declined this offer and sought a court direction for admission to the original school.

The Court observed that the refusal was unjustified, especially as an alternative arrangement had been made to secure the child's education. There was no interim order granting provisional admission or reserving a seat while the case was pending. Therefore, once the academic year ended, any right to admission for that year lapsed.

The Court clarified that it cannot create additional seats or grant admission for a subsequent academic year after that session has ended, as doing so would be unfair to other eligible candidates competing for limited places. It also rejected a Supreme Court ruling related to medical admissions, noting such exceptional relief applies only in rare cases within strict timelines that were not met here.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the right to education does not extend to selecting a specific institution or circumventing established procedures.