The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Uttar Pradesh Government’s decision to implement a school pairing policy for government primary and upper primary schools, rejecting petitions challenging the Government Orders dated 16.06.2025 and 24.06.2025. The orders relate to the pairing and consolidation of 105 government schools under the administrative supervision of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA).
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, delivering a common judgment in two writ petitions—Writ-C No. 6290 of 2025 (Krishna Kumari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and Writ-C No. 6292 of 2025 (Master Nitesh Kumar & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.)—held that the policy does not violate the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution or the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
Background
The petitioners had challenged the orders on the grounds that the pairing of schools, which involved merging certain schools into others, would force children to travel more than one kilometre to access education, allegedly in violation of Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. It was argued that such executive action undermined the constitutional mandate under Article 21A and could not override statutory rights through mere Government Orders.
Arguments by Petitioners
Senior Advocate Dr. L.P. Misra and Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for the petitioners, contended that:
- The school pairing policy runs contrary to Section 6 of the RTE Act, which mandates the establishment of neighbourhood schools within a prescribed distance.
- Rule 4 of the U.P. Rules mandates that for Classes I–V, schools must be located within 1 km of habitations with a population of 300.
- Executive instructions such as the impugned orders cannot override constitutional or statutory provisions under Article 13.
- The policy effectively closes functional schools, forcing students to shift to schools beyond the mandated neighbourhood limits, thereby violating their fundamental right under Article 21A.
Response by State Government
Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Anuj Kudesia and Senior Advocate Sandeep Dixit defended the orders as a rational policy decision:
- The pairing policy is part of implementing the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 to optimize resources and improve infrastructure and quality of education.
- Many schools had either no students or very low enrolment, leading to underutilized resources. The pairing would ensure better use of human and physical infrastructure.
- Rule 4(2) of the U.P. Rules allows exceptions to the neighbourhood criteria, with provisions for free transportation or residential facilities where necessary.
- The orders do not deprive any child of their right to education under Article 21A, nor are they arbitrary or in bad faith.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments, observing:
- The pairing orders do not contravene Article 21A or the RTE Act.
- The policy aims to enhance quality education by consolidating schools with poor enrolment and utilizing infrastructure more effectively.
- Rule 4(2) provides flexibility to the State for implementing neighbourhood criteria, and no evidence was presented that the State failed to meet its obligations.
- “Even after the issuance of the orders, the rights conferred by virtue of Article 21-A and the RTE Act are not adversely affected,” the Court noted.
- On the issue of whether executive orders can override fundamental rights, the Court held that the orders did not in any way negate or infringe upon the petitioners’ rights under Article 21A.
The Court further stated that “scope for judicial review of policy decisions is very limited” and such policies cannot be interfered with unless they are shown to be arbitrary or in violation of fundamental rights, which was not the case here.
Dismissing the writ petitions, the Allahabad High Court upheld the State’s policy decision, stating that it was in furtherance of improving quality education and implementing the National Education Policy, 2020. The Court emphasized that merely alleging inconvenience without demonstrable infringement of statutory or constitutional rights is insufficient to invalidate a policy.
- Cases: WRIT – C No. 6290 of 2025 & WRIT – C No. 6292 of 2025
- Petitioners’ Counsels: Dr. L.P. Misra, Prafulla Tiwari, Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi, Utsav Mishra, Gaurav Mehrotra
- Respondents’ Counsels: Anuj Kudesia (AAG), Rishabh Tripathi, Sandeep Dixit (Senior Advocate), C.S.C.
