Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking to challenge the action of the first respondent school in denying admission to his daughter on the ground that there is lack of space in the school for admission. The petitioner, invoking the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, has filed the present writ petition. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the action of the school Management was arbitrary and they applied discrimination against his daughter, which violates Article 17 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the matter came up for admission on 30.5.2012, this court ordered notice and private notice to the respondents. Accordingly, notice was served on the respondents. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader took notice. In respect of the first respondent, Dr. Fr. A. Xavier Arulraj, learned counsel appeared and he also filed a counter affidavit sworn to by the Principal of the School, who is the first respondent, dated 26.6.2012 together with a typed set of documents containing various informations relating to denial of admission to the petitioner's daughter. 4. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner is a resident of Mudapalli Village, Viruthachalam Taluk. According to the first respondent school, the said village is located approximately at a distance of 21 km from the school and the same does not come within a neighbourhood of the school. The school, when started admission during April 2012, clearly mentioned in the notice board that the application will be received only from the parents, who are residing in Neyveli Township, Mantharakuppam, Indira Nagar and Vadalur. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said that he is the resident of neighbourhood of the school so as to seek admission for his daughter in the school. 5. Apart from this, the school management also stated in its counter affidavit that the school is situated in the land of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (herein after shortly referred to as 'NLC') and it was entered into an agreement with NLC Management for providing preference in the matter of admission of pupil to children and dependents of NLC employees and thereafter, to children of licenses of shop etc. and their employees, employees of other Government Departments and public Sector undertakings etc, who have been provided with residential accommodation in Neyveli Township. After filling up the seats to those categories in the school, if there is still any vacancy, the children from the outside will be considered. 6. Since the first respondent school is admittedly a religious minority institution, having protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, it strictly followed a policy for admission giving preference to the following categories: (i)Catholic and other Christians (ii) NLC employees (iii) contract labourers of NLC, NLC society and those doing business with NLC and (iv) thereafter, those who are the residents of neighborhood of the School. Therefore, the petitioner does not come under any one of the categories mentioned above. 7. Further, it is seen from the counter affidavit that the first respondent school had received 462 applications for admission in LKG. Whereas, the capacity of the school is only for 300 students and the school already admitted 337 students and rejected 125 candidates for admission, including the petitioner's daughter. The contention of the petitioner that his daughter stood in Sl.No.13 for priority, was also denied. 8. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that invoking Article 17 of the Constitution of India is inapplicable to the case of the petitioner, as admittedly the petitioner belongs to 'Hindu Vanniyar', which comes to Most Backward Classes and not Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and therefore, the question of invoking Article 17 to the case of the petitioner does not arise. 9. At this juncture, the only question, which is a fundamental issue, that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are applicable to unaided minority school, like the first respondent school herein? 10. 9. At this juncture, the only question, which is a fundamental issue, that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are applicable to unaided minority school, like the first respondent school herein? 10. Constitutional validity of the 2009 Act came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported in 2012 (4) SCALE 272 (Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and another), in para 20 had observed as follows: "...However, the said 2009 Act and in particular Sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3) infringes the fundamental freedom guaranteed to unaided minority schools under Article 30(1) and consequently, applying the R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India ( 1957 SCR 930 ) principle of severability, the said 2009 Act shall not apply to such schools." 11. Applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the instant case, since the first respondent school is an unaided minority school and the provisions of Sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3) of the Act are held to be unconstitutional and inapplicable to unaided minority school, the claim of the petitioner invoking the provisions of the 2009 Act need not be gone into. 12. In the light of the above factual and legal position, the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the order of the first respondent. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.