Statement: Because primary-level seats in Government and Government-aided schools are far fewer than applicants, the Education Department recommends that admissions be done purely by random selection (lottery) rather than admission tests. Courses of Action: I. Instruct private schools to follow the same lottery system. II. Establish an independent body to regulate primary admissions and enforce fair, transparent processes. III. Restrict selections to children from the school’s immediate neighbourhood only. Which course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
The stated problem is excess demand over seats and the risk of unfair selection via tests at the primary level. Any logical course should ensure fairness and transparency while respecting institutional diversity and local regulations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Govt/Govt-aided schools face oversubscription.
• Lottery is proposed to avoid high-stakes testing for very young children.
• Private schools may be under distinct regulatory frameworks.

Concept / Approach:
Creating an independent oversight body (II) ensures consistent, transparent processes (lottery design, auditing, grievance redressal) where applicable. A blanket mandate on all private schools (I) may exceed remit and ignores diversity in management; neighbourhood-only restriction (III) could unfairly exclude deserving applicants and is not directly tied to fairness.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Independent regulators commonly manage lotteries, document checks, and audits for oversubscribed public seats.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming one-size-fits-all mandates; confusing fairness with locality quotas.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.