K. C. Bharagva, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the impugned order dated 14-6-1994 passed by the Head Master/ Principal U. P. Sainik School, opposite party No. 2, contained m Annexure 2 to the writ petition, cancelling the admission of the petitioner. 2 The facts of the case, shortly stated, are that the opposite parties are imparting education under the statutory provisions of law. The peti tioner after getting through in the competitive examination held at the State level was admitted in the year 1990 in Class VII in the U. P Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. In March, 1994 examination for Class X was held by the Central Board of Secondary Education (also known as Indian Secondary School Examination Board) and the petitioner appeared m that examination At the time when the petitioner sought his admission m Class XI the result of Class X examination was not; declared and therefore the petitioner was admitted in the next higher Class i. e. . Class XI subject to the result of Class X. In the month of June, 1994 the result of Indian Secondary School Examination was declared wherein the petitioner obtained 50% marks. Copy of the marks-sheet was submitted to the authorities concerned, which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition Thereafter on 14-6- 1994 the opposite party No. 2, vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition, informed the petitioner that his admission from Class XI which was made in the month of April, 1994, has been cancelled as the same was provisional only. It was alleged that the petitioner could not score the required percentage of marks in the said examination. When the father of the petitioner approach ed the opposite party No. 2 he was told that as the petitioner has not secured 50 per cent aggregate marks and 55 per cent marks in Math and Science subject his admission was cancelled. In aggregate only 10 marks are short. The entire career of the petitioner throughout was better and satisfactory and unfortunately in Math he could obtain 38 per cent marks. The petitioner also wanted that the examination in Math paper be taken again. It is further alleged that before cancellation of the admission of the petitioner it was obligatory on the authorities to issue notice to the petitioner. In the impugned order there is a reference to certain letter dated 18-4-1994 but this letter was not received by the petitioner. There is nothing in the rule which may entitle the opposite parties to cancel the admission of the petitioner. An application was made to opposite party No. 2 on 1-7-1994 and the father of the petitioner also met the opposite party No. 2 and as such the petitioner was permitted to attend Class XI till the result of Indian Secondary School Examination is declared. The cancellation of the petitioner's admission has been done in an arbitrary manner. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 it is alleged that the Sainik School has been established by the U. P. Sainik School Society, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. This Sainik School at Lucknow has been established under the Ministry of Defence with identical aims and objectives. The admission criteria for admission to Class XI is the same as is applicable to other Sainik Schools of the country. Under relevant clause of Para 3. 29 of Chapter 3 of the Rules and Regulations for Sainik School Society issued by the Ministry of Defence a boy of Class X declared pass by the Central Board of Secondary Education will be entitled for re-admission to Science stream only if he gets 55 per cent marks or more in Maths and in Physical and Life Science and 50 per cent marks in aggregate. Since the academic session 1994-95 had started on 1st April, 1994 and the CBSE Board result of Chemistry had not been declared, all the school cadets, incuding the petitioner, who had appeared at the examination of Class X, were provisionally permitted to attend the classes for Class XI. However a letter was sent vide letter No. 1633/trg/upss/1994 dated, 15th April, 1994, clearly specifying that the above admission was only provisional in nature and could be confirmed only on declaration of CBSE. Class X result subject to the conditions of (a) pass ing of Class X, (b] a minimum score of 50 per cent in aggregate and 55 per cent in Maths and Science subjects, and (c) review of general conduct. The petitioner has not filed this letter intentionally. As the petitioner could not obtain the minimum qualifying marks, as stated above, his provisional admission was cancelled by the impugned letter. It is further alleged that the Regional Office of the CBSE Board issued guidelines for the compart-mental examination of improvement of performance which was to be held from 5-8-1994. According to the guidelines issued by the CBSE Board the petitioner who had passed in AISSE in all subjects was not eligible for improvement of performance examination, 4. In the supplementary counter affidavit it is further alleged by the opposite parties that according to the rules and regulations framed by the U. P. Sainik School Society on admission to Class XI, issued by the Minis try of Defence, the criteria for admission/promotion of Class XI is the same as applicable in other Sainik Schools of the country. It is further alleged that Para 10 of the rules and regulations of the U. P. Sainik School Society provides for the constitution of the Local Board of Administration and Para 11 of the same provides for the meeting and functions of the Local Board of Administration. In the meeting of the Local Board of Administra tion dated 10-8-1994 the action of the Principal in following the Rules and Regulations and permitting the cadet Rananjai Singh to continue as a day scholar has been approved. In similar circumstances last year the admission of one cadet Lavlesh Gupta was cancelled. A true copy of the letter is Annexure 4 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. 5. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it is alleged that the rules made by the Ministry of Defence are not applicable to the respondent-Institution. Only the U. P. Sainik School Society is responsible to formulate and frame rules and regulations to run the U. P. Sainik School. The decision of the Local Board of Administration if taken after the controversy has arisen, is of no use. The letter dated 18-4-1994 was not served upon the petitioner. The condition on which the admission is now sought to be cancelled was never disclosed to the petitioner. Rananjai Singh was allowed to continue even after issue of similar letter of cancellation of admission dated 18th April, 1994. The action of the opposite party No. 2 is illegal and arbitrary. One Manirh Kumar whose admission was cancelled in the year 1992 was again admitted in Class VIII. 6. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. The controversy in the present case is a narrow one. According to the admitted case of the parties the admission of the petitioner was provisional. According to the petitioner his admission to Class XI was provisional on account of the fact that the result of Class X had not been declared by that time while accord ing to the opposite parties the admission was provisional oa the ground that the result was not declared and also on the ground that at least 55 per cent marks were to be obtained in Maths and Science subjects and 50 per cent marks aggregate were to be obtained. Now it has to be seen as to whether this condition which has been imposed about obtaining the minimum marks was declared at the time when the admission was given. According to the learned Counsel for the opposite parties the rules and regulations of Sainik Schools which have been issued by the Ministry of Defence are being followed by the opposite parties from a long time. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the prospectus which has been issued by the U. P. Sainik School no such criteria has been laid down that if a particular percentage of marks is not obtained in Class X then admission to Class XI can be refused or provisional admission can be cancelled. According to the learned Counsel for the opposite parties this condition has been borrow ed from Para 3. 29 of Chapter 3 of the rules and regulations for Sainik School Society issued by the Ministry of Defence. THUS para, which has been reproduced at page 4 of the counter-affidavit, reads as under : - "a boy Class X declared pass by the Central Board of Secondary Education will be entitled for re- admission to Science stream only if he gets 55 per cent marks or more in Maths and in Physical and Life Science and 50 per cent marks in aggregate. " 7. No doubt, if this rule existed and was declared at the time of admis sion of the petitioner to Class XI then he will have to obtain the standard prescribed therein. The question is as to whether this essential condition was' disclosed to the petitioner when he was admitted to Class XI. 8. Instructions for admission to Sainik Schools are contained in the prospectus issued by the U. P. Sainik School, Lucknow. The conditions prescribed in the above prospectus are to be complied with by the students who take admission in the U. P. Sainik School, Lucknow. At page 36 of this prospectus one of the conditions is as under :- "that if at any time it is found that the cadet is not making satisfac tory progress in studies and fails in any of the terminal examina tions, he will be removed from the school, but it would be open to the guarantor to retain him at the school on payment of the full fee subject to his good behaviour and provided he is considered fit for entry into the Armed Forces. The amount of the full fee will be intimated to the guarantor in due course from the date the cadet fails to obtain his satisfactory report in studies. " A perusal of this provision will go to show that a student can be removed from the school if his progress in studies is not satisfactory at any time and if he fails in any of the terminal examinations but there is a provision that it will be open to the guarantor to retain him at the school on payment of full fee subject to his good behaviour and he is found fit for entry into the armed forces. There is no condition in the entire prospectus that if a parti cular percentage of marks is not obtained by a student in Class X then he will not be admitted to XI standard. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties this condition was intimated to the candidates by means of a letter dated 18th April, 1994, a copy of which is Annexure A-l to the counter affidavit. The petitioner has denied receipt of this letter. In this letter it is mentioned that the candidate has to secure 55% marks in Maths and Science subjects and 50% aggregate marks. Now it has to be seen as to whether by means of this letter the opposite party No. 2 could have imposed this condition for admission to Class XI. When this condition was not mentioned in the prospectus which was issued at time of admis sion of the candidates the Principal has no power to add any condition after admission of the candidates to a particular class. All the instructions and informations are contained in this prospectus. It contains informations regard ing preparation of merit list, the schools at which the examinations are to be held, about the requirement of medical fitness and as to who is eligible to be a student, and all such other requirements regarding entry into the hostels etc. but no condition regarding obtaining minimum prescribed marks has been incorporated therein. Then how the Principal is authorised to incorporate this condition in the said letter even if it was issued to the peti tioner. This will be beyond the powers of the Principal. The powers could have been conferred upon the Principal by the prospectus or by other rules to do so out as the matter stands no such power was given to the Principal for cancellation of admission of student of Class XI. 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has now placed reliance on a decision of Local Board of Administration which was taken by the Board in its meeting dated 10-8-1994, the extract of which is contained in the letter dated 17-8-1994, a copy of which is Annexure A-3 to the counter affidavit. In the above decision, in item No. II (C) it is mentioned that out of 40 cadets who appeared, 30 secured 60% and above marks, 8 between 45-60% and 2 below 45%. The pass result though 100 per cent, needed a considerable qualitative improvement. The Principal informed that 7 regular cadets and 2 Day Scholars should not be admitted to Class XI as they failed to achieve the minimum stipulated marks for such admission, item it is also mentioned as under :- "the Principal informed that since U. P. Sainik School Society had not yet framed any rules on the subject he has been strictly following, ever since his arrival in the School in February, 1993, the directions contained in the 'rules and regulations for Sainik Schools' issued by the Ministry of Defence. There the operating para reads 'a body of Class X declared passed by the CBSE will be entitled for readmission to science stream only if he gets 55 per cent marks or more in Maths and in Physical Sciences and 50 per cent of marks in aggregate. " A perusal of the above item will go to show that the U. P. Sainik School Society has not framed any rules on this subject and according to the averment of the Principal, as disclosed before the Local Board of Adminis tration, he is following, ever since his arrival in the School in February, 1993, the directions contained in the "rules and Regulations for Sainik Schools" issued by the Ministry of Defence. This shows that the conten tion of the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 that this practice is being followed in the institution about admission to Class XI from a very long time, becomes incorrect. This practice is being followed in the above institution since February, 1993 when the present Principal joined the above institution. It is also clear from this letter that no rules on this subject have been framed by the society as yet. Unless the rules have been framed by the Society on the subject or the Society gives power to the Principal to fix eligibility criteria for admission to Class XI these conditions could not have been imposed by the Principal of the School. The Principal could not have borrowed these conditions from the rules and regulations for Sainik Schools which have been issued by the Ministry of Defence. The institution should have framed its own rules and regulations to run the Sainik School at Lucknow and other places. Unless it is done the Rules and Regulations applicable elsewhere cannot be imported and imposed upon the students. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above it is clear that the rules about admission to Class XI as mentioned in item No. II (C) of the letter contained in Annexure A-3 to the counter affidavit cannot be imposed by the opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon certain judgments of this Court which are dealt with hereunder. 10, Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Manoj Gupta v. Co-ordinator, Admission Committee Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad and another, 1985 UPLBEC 1004. In this case also minimum 55 per cent marks were fixed for being called for interview. The Court after discussing the matter came to the conclusion that before the date of interview no information was furnished to the candidates about fixation of 55 per cent marks and therefore this condition cannot be imposed upon the candidates. In Para 5 of the report it was observed that informa tion about 55 per cent marks in Intermediate Science examination was not circulated to the candidates including the petitioner and the only information given to the petitioner and other candidates was that the candidates should have passed Intermediate Examination with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as stated in the Brochure. It was further observed that if any information as furnished later on the petitioner was not bound by it. The petitioner once admitted and allotted roll number for the examination cannot be declared to be not eligible. This case fully applies to the facts of the pre sent case because here also it is nowhere mentioned in the prospectus of the U. P. Sainik School, Lucknow that minimum 55 per cent marks in Maths and Physical Science were necessary for admission to Class XI. Therefore subsequent information, if any, vide Annexure A-l to the counter affidavit, cannot change the position and the petitioner is not bound by those conditions. 11. From the side of the opposite parties reliance has been placed on the case of Anupam Srivastava v. Principal, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini, 'allahabad and another, 1981 UPLBEC 188. In that case refusal was made for admission. By the time the writ petition was filed half of the academic session was over. The explanation of the petitioner for the delay was that he made representation to the Vice- Chancellor of the University. It was observed that a student has no right to make representation to the Vice Chancellor under the provisions of Section 28 (6) of the U. P. State Univer sities Act, 1973 and therefore the delay which occurred was material. The admission was refused on the ground that more than half of the academic session was over. This case does not apply to the facts of the present case. 12. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is Kumari Mohini Gupta v. Allahabad University, Allahabad (1993)2 UPLBEC 1397. In that case admission policy was framed by the admission committee and the academic council. It was held that the policy was open to judicial review by this Court. This case is entirely on different lootings and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The next case relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is Ajai Kumar Srivastava v. Vice-Chancellor, Govind Vallabh Pant Uni versity and others, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 973. The case was that the petitioner was dropped from the University on account of repeated poor performance. This case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case because the peti tioner has no poor academic record and only the question of admission is involved in the present case. It was further observed in that case that the academic experts were entitled to adjudge the petitioner's performance and while doing so they were of the opinion that the performance of the petitioner was so poor that further opportunity after the third attempt may not be given. 14. Similar is the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties i. e. Ashok Sharma v. Vice Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, Nainital and others, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 985. In Para 3 of the above case it was observed that in view of the mandatory language of Regulation 26, it was not proper for this Court to issue any mandatory direction to the University to permit a student to appear in examination, who failed thrice. This case also does not apply to the facts of the present case. 15. In the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543. in Para 16 it was held that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regu lation making body. It may be a wise policy which fully effectuate the pur pose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. In the present case, as has been seen above, there was no information of the type relied upon by the opposite party No. 2, in the prospectus of the opposite parties. Therefore this case does not support the opposite parties. 16. In the case of Dr. Umakant v. Bhikalal Jain and others, 1992 (1) Supreme Court Cases 105, it was held that where two interpretations are possible, an interpretation seeking to reverse or upset long course of action and. decision taken by educational authorities should be avoided. In the present case, as seen in the earlier part of this judgment, there was no long course of action and decision taken by the opposite parties. The Principal of the School, opposite party No. 7, joined the institution in February, 1993 and since then he has been following the rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Defence for the Sainik Schools. Therefore it cannot be said to be a long course of action which may be upset by the Court. 17. Thus we find that the opposite party No. 2 could not have can celled the provisional admission of the petitioner in the manner in which it has been done. 18. Now the question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the academic session has already started and as such now admission cannot be allowed by this Court as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 593. No doubt, in this case it was held that the practice of mid-term admission should be deprecated. In that case the petition was filed by the petitioner four months after the start of the academic session and therefore the same was rejected. In the present case admission was given to the petitioner to Class XI but the same has been cancelled on invalid grounds. Therefore the facts of this case are different from the facts of the present case. 19. Thus it is held that the cancellation of admission of the petitioner to Class XI by the opposite parties by means of order dated 14-6-1994, con tained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition is invalid. 20. The writ petition is allowed and the letters dated 14-6-1994 issued by the opposite party No. 2, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, is quashed and the opposite party No. 2 is directed to re- admit the petitioner to-Class XI within ten days from today and permit him to complete the course of studies. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed .;