1

CGHC010247482026 2026:CGHC:41155

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 3452 of 2026

Order Reserved on 10/08/2026

Order Delivered on 22/09/2026

1 - Sudarshan S/o Rajkumar Lodhi Aged About 32 Years All R/o Village

Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

2 - Suraj Sahu S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Saja

Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

3 - Govind Patel S/o Prakash Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village

Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

4 - Dakwar Banjare S/o Mansukh Das Banjare, Aged About 33 Years

R/o Village Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

5 - Lalaram Soni S/o Ramji Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Saja

Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

6 - Chandra Prakash S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village

Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

2

7 - Mukesh Soni S/o Shiv Kumar Soni Aged About 44 Years R/o Village

Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

8 - Atma Ram Sahu S/o Shatruhan Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o

Village Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

9 - Bharat Sahu S/o Bisru Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Saja

Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

10 - Om Prakash Soni S/o Keju Ram Soni, Aged About 40 Years R/o

Village Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

11 - Sunila Verma Tulsi Ram Verma, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village

Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

12 - Dekoram S/o Prahalad Yadav, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village

Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara C.G.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya

Raipur District Raipur C.G.

2 - Collector Bemetara District Bemetara C.G.

3 - The District Education Officer, Bemetara District Bemetara C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

3

For Petitioner(s):Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate

For Respondent(s):Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. AG

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Order

1.By way of the instant petition, the petitioners pray for issuance of

an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling upon the

respondent authorities to grant admission to the wards of the

petitioners in Lower Kindergarten (LKG) across various Swami

Atmanand Excellent English Medium Schools situated within

District Bemetara. While in a majority of districts throughout the

State of Chhattisgarh, eligible children are being duly admitted in

the LKG section of the Swami Atmanand Excellent English

Medium Schools, the respondent authorities in District Bemetara

District have arbitrarily failed and neglected to conduct the

admission process for the said class, thereby depriving the

aspiring students of their Right to Education. Despite repeated

requests and representations made by the parents and guardians

of the aspiring students seeking initiation of LKG admissions

within District Bemetara, the respondent authorities, including the

Principals and Headmasters of Swami Atmanand Excellent

English Medium Schools, have ignored the same and failed to

take any remedial action thereon. As a consequence, the wards

of the petitioners, who hail from the economically weaker and

4

lower strata of society, are being denied equal access to

foundational pre-primary education. While the State Government

actively provides LKG admissions under the Swami Atmanand

Scheme under various other districts throughout the State of

Chhattisgarh, the selective non-conduction of LKG admissions

exclusively in District Bemetara is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Such inaction by the respondents directly infringes upon the

petitioners’ fundamental Right to Equality guaranteed under

Article 14 read with Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and

defeats the main object of early childhood education embodied

under Section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short “the RTE Act, 2009”).

Left with no other remedy, the petitioners invoke the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for redressal of their grievances, seeking the following reliefs:

10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the

nature of mandamus and direct the

respondents to permit the admission

of students/petitioner's children at the

LKG level through the web portal in

the Swami Atmanand Excellent

English Medium Schools in the

District of Bemetara.

10.2 Grant any other relief, which is

deemed fit in the circumstances of

the case.

2.The essential facts, as projected by the petitioners, are that they

belong to the economically weaker and marginalized strata of

5

society. The petitioners are primarily engaged in occupations

within unorganized sectors, earning modest and uncertain

livelihoods. Thus, despite their earnest endeavours to secure

high-quality education for their young children by seeking

admission into standard State-run institutions like Swami

Atmanand Excellent English Medium Schools, their efforts are

being frustrated due to arbitrary and unreasonable policy of the

respondent school authorities and the State Government. The

State Government introduced a welfare policy/scheme under

which Swami Atmanand English Medium Schools were

established throughout all districts in the State of Chhattisgarh.

The primary objective of this policy is to provide high-quality

English medium education to students from all socio-economic

backgrounds, enabling them to compete on an equal footing with

students of private English medium institutions. Under this

uniform State Scheme, admissions are systematically conducted

from LKG to Class XII in Swami Atmanand Excellent English

Medium Schools in almost all districts throughout the State of

Chhattisgarh. However, in sharp contrast to other districts, the

respondent authorities in District Bemetara have completely failed

to implement or extend the LKG admission process in their

schools. As a result, the petitioners’ young wards are being

deprived of the benefit of this key welfare scheme, which is in

violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14

and 21 of the Constitution of India. Once a policy decision has

been taken by the State Government to establish Atmanand

6

Excellent English Medium Schools and to provide admissions

seamlessly from LKG to Class XII throughout every district, such

a beneficial facility cannot be denied or withheld in District

Bemetara alone. The petitioners are desirous to secure

admission for their young wards in the LKG section of the said

Swami Atmanand Excellent English Medium Schools so as to

afford them quality English medium education. However, due to

the inaction of the respondents in extending this facility, the wards

of the petitioners are being unfairly deprived of foundational

schooling at the entry level. Hence, this Petition.

3.Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

upon inquiries made with the school administration, the

petitioners were informed by the concerned Principal of

Atmanand Excellent English Medium School, Rajamohgaon,

Block Saja, District Bemetara that LKG classes cannot be started

due to the non-allocation of the required sanction and budget by

the State Government. Further, it was communicated that the

State Government did not sanction necessary staffing setup and

infrastructure required to conduct LKG classes in the said school.

As a consequence, even though LKG Classes are fully

operational across various other districts throughout the State of

Chhattisgarh, the same remain non-functional and unavailable

within District Bemetara. He submits that the failure on the part of

the State to commence LKG classes constitutes a clear violation

of Article 14 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. The

petitioners and their wards cannot be selectively deprived of the

7

benefits that stand duly extended and operational across other

districts within the State of Chhattisgarh. The Right to Education

is a constitutional right guaranteed to students up to Class XII and

any such discrimination or deprivation on the part of the State

authorities is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

He further submits that a perusal of the communication dated

27.2.2026 issued by the District Education Officer, Bemetara and

the communication dated 28.2.2026 issued by the Headmaster of

the subject English Medium School, clearly shows that the

respondent authorities failed to render LKG classes functional

due to the non-availability of the requisite staffing setup and

funds. Thus, it stands admitted on record by the respondent

authorities themselves that lack of sanctioned posts and financial

allocation from the State Government is the sole impediment

preventing the commencement of LKG classes in the school in

question. He submits that these administrative communications

clearly establish that the State authorities have subjected

Bemetara District and the concerned school in particular to

discrimination by refusing to commence LKG classes on the mere

pretext of non-allocation of funds and non-sanctioning of staff.

Such arbitrary inaction on the part of State authorities reflects a

sorry state of affairs, inimical to the principles of a Welfare State.

The Right to Education being a cherished fundamental right

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, its denial

warrants strictures from this Court, accompanied by a writ of

mandamus directing the State respondents to commence LKG

8

classes forthwith. He lastly submits that the petitioners seek no

undue privilege but a bonafide entitlement founded upon the law,

which cannot be defeated by the whimsical and capricious

conduct of the State machinery. Learned counsel for the

petitioner lastly submits that the writ petition deserves to be

allowed with costs in the interest of justice.

4.Per contra, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the

State submits that the instant petition is devoid of merits and it is

liable to be dismissed at the threshold. He submits that the State

of Chhattisgarh, as a Welfare State, remains conscious of its

constitutional mandate to impart education to the populace. He

submits that the public representatives submitted several

recommendations for opening English medium schools in their

respective constituencies, enabling children from economically

weaker sections to access quality English medium education. The

State Government, in its benovelent capacity, considered these

representations in the larger public interest. Hence, a policy

decision was formulated to upgrade educational standards

statewide, pursuant to which the State resolved to establish at

least one model school in each district under the name and style

of “Swami Atmanand Excellent English Medium School”. He

submits that in furtherance of the aforementioned policy, selected

Government Hindi Medium Schools were duly sanctioned with the

requisite staff cadres for their operationalization. The funding for

these upgraded institutions is sourced through the District

Minerals Fund. To streamline admissions into these upgraded

9

institutions, detailed procedures and guidelines have been

formulated and amended periodically. He further submits that a

policy decision of the State Government cannot be casually

challenged, even where a violation of Article 21-A of the

Constitution of India or the RTE Act, 2009 is alleged. He submits

that the foundational pre-school education (LKG) does not

automatically attract the mandatory statutory obligations under

Article 21-A or the Right to Education framework, which applies to

elementary education for children aged 6 to 14 years.

Furthermore, a policy decision formulated by the Executive

cannot be interfered with in a routine manner unless and until it

suffers from manifest arbitrariness on the part of authorities. He

further submits that the State Government, in exercise of its

policy and administrative discretion, determines the opening of

LKG classes across regions based on local necessity and

feasibility. Learned counsel submits that a policy decision falls

within the exclusive domain of the State Government. A citizen

can only seek the enforcement of an existing legal right and in

the absence of a corresponding statutory duty cast upon the

State, the concerned authorities cannot be compelled to grant a

relief that they are under no legal obligation to provide. As such,

the petition is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection.

6.Evidently, the letters/memo 27.2.2026 and 28.2.2026 dated

issued by the District Education Officer (respondent No.3) and the

10

Head Master/Principal of the subject School (respondent No.4)

respectively, reveal that these authorities have categorically

admitted that LKG classes could not be commenced only due to

non-availability of infrastructure and the lack of budgetary

allocation, despite demand raised in this regard. Nowhere in the

record has any other reason been assigned on the basis of

which it can be inferred that the authorities genuinely declined to

open LKG classes in the subject school. Being a Welfare State,

the State is expected to frame and execute its policies uniformly

across all districts so that benefits reach every section of society

rather than being confined to a select few. Territorial

discrimination in matters pertaining to foundational education

cannot be permitted under the constitutional scheme. Once the

State took a policy decision to impart quality English-medium

education through the Swami Atmanand Excellent English

Medium Schools throughout all districts of the State of

Chhattisgarh, the said policy ought to have been implemented in

its true letter and spirit universally. The benefit of such a Welfare

Scheme cannot be denied to students of parents of a particular

district or social class nor can access to basic education be

restricted in a discriminatory manner.

7.The RTE Act, 2009 was enacted with the objective of extending

equal access to quality education to all strata of Society, without

territorial or socio-economic restrictions. Consequently, in my

view, the petitioners are equally entitled to seek admission for

their wards in Swami Atmanand Excellent English Medium

11

Schools right from the pre-primary stage (LKG/UKG). Being a

Welfare State, the State Government is expected to extend its

beneficial educational facilities uniformly throughout all districts,

ensuring that students of a specific region are not deprived of

high-standard education provided from a policy formulated for the

benefit of students statewide.

8.In the matter of Dinesh Biwaji Ashtikar Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others reported in (2026) 7 SCC 267, the

following was observed in paragraphs 2, 6, 7, 7.1, 8 & 9 :

2. The constitutional declaration of the right under Article

21-A, followed by the statutory mandate under Section 3

of the Act for free and compulsory elementary education

can be realised only with effective implementation of the

provisions of the Act. We have held that ensuring

admission of such students must be a national mission

and an obligation of the appropriate Government and the

local authority. Equally, Courts, be it constitutional or civil,

must walk that extra mile to provide easy access and

efficient relief to parents who complain of denial of the

right

6. Article 21-A declares the fundamental right to free and

compulsory education of all children of the age of 6 to 14

years.

“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.”

The obligation that the “State shall provide free and

compulsory education in such manner as maybe

12

determined by law”, translates into the 2009 legislation,

the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education

Act

“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.”

7. It is important to recognize that the Constitution

declares elementary education as a fundamental right,

as against many other liberties, which are in the nature

of fundamental freedoms. The consequence of

identifying the right to elementary education as a

positive right is the recognition of co-relative duties and

identification of five duty bearers, being : (i) the

appropriate Government (ii) the local authority (iii) the

neighbourhood schools (iv) the parents/guardians, and

(v) the primary school teachers. It is important to

highlight the obligations and duties of these duty bearers

in detail not only for accountability, but also to ensure

that they have sufficient support from the Government

and the society.

7.1.The first duty bearer; is the “appropriate

Government”. The duty of the appropriate Government to

establish neighbourhood schools is prescribed in Section

6.

“6. Duty of appropriate Government and local

authority to establish school.—For carrying out

13

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 financial responsibilities under the Act are shared

between the Central and the State Governments under

Section 7. Further duties upon establishing the

neighbourhood schools are prescribed in Section 8,

which inter alia mandate that the appropriate

Government shall, “ensure availability of a

neighbourhood school as specified in Section 6”.

8. It is necessary to underscore two foundational

constitutional values that Section 12 of the Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

(“the RTE Act”) is designed to articulate and secure. The

first, in unequivocal terms, mandates that not less than

twenty-five percent of the strength of an entry-level class

shall be reserved for and filled by children belonging to

“weaker sections” and “disadvantaged groups”, who are

thereby guaranteed access to free elementary education.

The second is that such children are to be admitted to

unaided schools in their neighbourhood, thereby

embedding within the statutory framework the principle

that the constitutional promise of education under Article

21-A is to be realised through common local schools

rather than segregated or parallel systems.

9. The legislative choice to implement the right to free

and compulsory education through neighbourhood

14

schools is not merely administrative; it is a deliberate

constitutional strategy to operationalise equality of

status, dignity, and social integration among children in

their formative years. In sustaining Section 12, the

Supreme Court has recognised that the rights of children

carry corresponding obligations on the State to “respect,

protect and fulfil” those rights and to regulate private

educational institutions so that children's rights are not

violated even in non-State spheres.

9.Coming to the facts of the present case, in view of the foregoing

discussion and in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid

judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that judicial

intervention is eminently warranted. Equality of educational

opportunity is a constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 21

of the Constitution of India. Further, as Education falls under

Entry 25 of the Concurrent List (List III) in the Seventh Schedule,

both the State Government and the Union of India share a

solemn responsibility to ensure non-discrimination in access to

public education and to effectively implement the legislative

mandate under the Right to Education framework. Furthermore,

once the State Government formulates a policy to impart pre-

primary education through its institutions, it cannot selectively

deny the benefit to a particular region.

10.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed with the following

directions :

1.The State Government and its respondent authorities

are directed to forthwith commence LKG classes

15

throughout all districts in the State of Chhattisgarh and

specifically in District Bemetara, including Swami

Atmanand Excellent English Medium School,

Rajamohgaon, Block Saja, District Bemetara (CG).

2.The concerned authorities shall ensure that necessary

arrangements, infrastructure and admission for LKG

classes are finalized within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order, ensuring that

the academic future of young children (naunihals) is not

jeoparadized in the current academic session.

3.The students of District Bemetara shall be placed at

par with students of other districts in accessing state-

sponsored pre-primary English medium education

without discrimination .

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Shyna Ajay