Allahabad HC dismisses pleas against Uttar Pradesh govt's school merger order

Hindustan Times

08-07-2025

In a major relief to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Monday dismissed both the writ petitions challenging the state government's June 16 order for the merger of government-run primary schools and upper primary schools. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court began hearing the case on July 3. (FILE PHOTO)
The court asserted that pairing (merger) of schools does not violate Article 21A of the Constitution.
Article 21A guarantees the right to education as a fundamental right for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years.
A single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on Monday, observing: 'The mandate of Article 21A of Constitution cannot be presumed to be decided to hold that the free and compulsory education to the children in between the age of six and fourteen years have to be provided by the State within a distance of 1 km, as is being argued.'
The court added that just because the distance of the educational institutions after the merger would result in the school being established at a distance of more than one kilometre from a population of 300, the argument of the petitioners that it would be a violation of rights conferred under Article 21A of the Constitution, cannot be justified.
Elaborating on the issue, the court pointed out that the duty to establish a school within one km has to be interpreted in a manner that it does not become absolutely unworkable and in the present case, the distances range from one km to approximately 2- 2.5 km.
The court observed that the rules are applicable throughout the state from rural areas to semi-urban areas and to urban areas where there are limitations of the availability of land and other resources.
'The approximate population of the state is 24 crore and if the arguments of the petitioner are to be accepted that for every 300 inhabitants one school should be available at a distance of 1 km, the state will have to provide for about 8 lakh schools,' the court said.
The high court added that literal interpretation of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, would render the entire rule to be an absurdity.
Rule 4(1)(a) of RTE Act, 2009, pertains to the admission of children into age-appropriate classes. Specifically, it addresses situations where a child over six years old has not been admitted to school or has dropped out. This rule ensures such children are admitted to a class that matches their age, enabling them to continue their elementary education.
The rule is to be interpreted adopting the principles of interpretation so as to make it workable and not a dead letter, the court said.
'A purposive interpretation of the rule is required which mandates that the same must be construed in a manner that advances the object and purpose for which it was enacted,' the court observed.
The court also pointed out that it is the duty of the state government to establish schools at a distance which is closest to the habitation and in case it is not possible then the government must provide transportation facilities.
Interpretation of a rule should be done keeping in consideration the fact that Uttar Pradesh is a large state, availability of land and other resources, including financial, pointed out by the court.
The court added that the government is bound to establish a school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and, in absence, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities.
The court pointed out that the neighbourhood schools would also include other than government schools.
'The obligation cast upon the State shall be scrupulously followed and the State is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State,' the court said.
'It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law,' the court said.
The case
Fifty-one students from Sitapur – 50 from a primary school and one from the upper primary section – approached the high court challenging the June 16 order of the state government for the merger of primary schools across Uttar Pradesh. They moved the court through their guardian.
A separate petition was filed by another primary student through his mother. The court clubbed both the petitions and delivered the common judgment.
The petitioners opposed the merger of schools, stating that it will cause difficulties for children who will have to travel farther to reach their new schools, affecting their right to free and compulsory education.
Additional advocate general (AAG) Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel (CSC) Shailendra Kumar Singh presented the state government's views in court.
Senior advocate LP Mishra appeared on behalf of the petitioners.