6 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jun 2, 2026 02:29 PM IST
The Meghalaya High Court recently directed a Shillong school to immediately allow a five-year-old child to attend regular classes, observing that the child stood to “lose” an entire academic year because the school communicated the cancellation of admission only after admissions in most schools across the city had closed.
Justice W Diengdoh noted that although the child’s parents failed to attend the school’s induction programme on time, the school had cancelled the admission despite the child having already been selected for admission.
“In fact, if such a decision has been conveyed to the parents of the child officially since the month of December, it would have allowed them to look for alternatives. But, by February 2026 till date, the admission process in almost all the schools in the city has been closed, which would mean that one precious year would have been lost to the child’s education,” the May 22 order read.
Justice W Diengdoh noted that there is nothing on record which spells out that there will be an induction programme and failure to attend the same would result in automatic cancellation.
The high court was hearing a petition filed by Deepali Patel seeking restoration of her son’s admission to the kindergarten class for the 2026 academic session.
‘Education a public function’
- The high court mentioned that impartation of education by an educational institution, whether public or private, is a “public” function.
- It was added that the right to education is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution, which was further crystallised by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
- The high court pointed out that if there is an element of public duty or function carried out by the said school, then such an institution would come within the definition of “state”.
- The court noted that there is nothing on record which clearly spells out that there will be an induction programme and failure to attend the same would result in automatic cancellation of the child’s admission.
- Consequently, the court held that the action or inaction of the school authorities can only be termed as an action of arbitrariness and certainly a deprivation of natural justice to the parents and the child in question.
- The court held that the petition is maintainable, and that the action of the school authorities concerning the cancellation of the child’s admission calls for issuing directions.
- The court allowed the mother’s plea and set aside the forfeiture/cancellation of the petitioner’s son in the kindergarten class for the session.
- The court directed the school to immediately allow the child to attend regular classes within one week.
Admission cancelled despite explanation
The dispute arose after a five-year-old child secured admission to St Edmund’s School for the 2026 academic session and was allotted a registration number.
After completing the admission formalities and being selected for admission, the child’s parents received three SMS messages informing them about a compulsory induction programme scheduled for December 13, 2025.
However, the child’s mother was undergoing treatment for an eye ailment at the time and, according to her, inadvertently missed the messages.
Story continues below this ad
On the day of the programme, the school contacted the parents, following which the child’s father rushed to the school with the child and allegedly attended the second part of the induction session. The next day, the mother also emailed the school explaining the circumstances and tendered an unconditional apology. Despite this, no response was received from the school.
The parents again contacted the school seeking clarity on their son’s admission status in February 2026. The school then informed them that the admission stood forfeited for failure to attend the induction programme.
Aggrieved by the same, the parents issued a legal notice and subsequently approached the Meghalaya High Court challenging the cancellation of the child’s admission.
Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate S Deb submitted that the action of the school authorities was arbitrary and unilateral.
Story continues below this ad
Deb added that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause or be heard in a matter, such cancellation of the petitioner’s son’s admission is a violation of the basic principles of natural justice, fairness, equality, proportionality and legitimate expectation.
He added that the petitioner’s son was selected for admission, and it was informed that the classes would commence in February 2026 and admitted that three SMSs were received in December 2025, with which they were informed about the said induction programme.
However, Deb added, due to the fact that then, the petitioner was undergoing medical treatment for her eye ailment, she did not notice the said messages.
It was further mentioned that when a phone call was received from the school authorities, informing them about the said induction programme, the husband of the petitioner, along with his son, rushed to the school and was able to attend the said programme in the second half of the day.
Story continues below this ad
On the contrary, school’s representative, advocate S Chanda, submitted that there was no fault on the side of the school management since the communication of the date of the said induction programme was sent to the parents of the child, informing them of the said induction programme.
He further submitted that the petitioner in this petition admitted that the school is a private autonomous minority institution, but has maintained that the school is performing/discharging public functions.
Justice W Diengdoh noted that there is nothing on record which spells out that there will be an induction programme and failure to attend the same would result in automatic cancellation.