- (1.) R. R. K. Trlvedi, J. In both the aforesaid writ petitions the controversy and the questions of fact and law involved are identical and thus both the writ peti tions may be decided by a common judg ment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and learned counsel for parties have agreed that the petitions may be decided finally at this stage. Writ Petition No. 28320 of 1995 shall be the leading case.
(2.) INSTITUTION Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir, Allahabad was established in 1988. It is recognized by and affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. This institution imparted educa tion up to Class X. However, in 1994 it was permitted to start Class XI. The institu tion is run by a registered Society known as Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir Samiti, Allahabad. It does not receive any grant or financial assistance from the Central or State Governments. The case of petitioner Arvind Kumar Sharma is that he was ad mitted in Class VI of this INSTITUTION in the year 1990 after successfully completing the Entrance Examination. Since then the petitioner continued to be a regular stu dent. In March, 1995, he appeared in the Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. He was declared pass. However, he could secure only 52% marks. He applied for admission in Class XL The INSTITUTION, however, held an Entrance Test in which petitioner ap peared but he was not selected for admis sion. Then father of petitioner ap proached the principal and pleaded that as petitioner is a product of and regular stu dent of INSTITUTION, he should be given preference in the matter of admission than the outsiders. However, this request was not accepted. Aggrieved by refusal of ad mission, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Con stitution and filed Writ Petition No. 28320 of 1995 and has prayed for a direction to respondent No. 2 to admit him in Class XI (Bio Science ). Case of petitioner Sanjay Sahu is that in the year 1989 he was admitted in Class V in the Mann Public School Holambi Khurd, Delhi-82 which is af filiated to Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. Petitioner studied their upto Class VII. Thereafter, he sought admission in the year 1992 in Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir, Allahabad. Petitioner was asked to appear in the Entrance Examination which he com peted successfully and thereafter he was enrolled as a regular student. In March, 1995, he appeared in the Examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education which he has passed. However, he could secure only 50% marks. Rest of the facts are identical like in the earlier petition that he appeared in the Entrance Examination but he has been refused ad mission. Aggrieved by the refusal, Writ Petition No. 28652 of 1995 has been filed. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit in both the aforesaid petitions and have contended that as the Institution Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir is a private Institution and is not getting any aid or financial assistance from the Central or State Governments and no infr ingement of any statutory right or viola tion of Statute has been alleged, the writ petition is not legally maintainable. It has been further submitted that the Central Board of Secondary Education has framed Examination Bye- Laws and in Chapter 3 Bye-Law 6 (ii), it has been provided that a student who has passed the secondary or an equivalent examination of a recognised Board/university may be admitted in Class XI by the Principal without getting approval of the Board. It is contended that under the aforesaid Bye-Law the students who have passed Class X from other schools, if they apply for admission in Class XI, they have to be considered. It has been further submitted that Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir being a reputed institution attracts many students of other institutions. In the relevant year there were about 134 applicants seeking such admission and on account of the above Bye-law of the Board, the institution had no option except to prepare a merit list after holding Entrance Examination and to Select 50 students. It is submitted that there is only one Section in Class XI in the Science group. After the Entrance Ex amination a merit list was prepared and 52 students have been selected of whom 35 students were from the own institution and 17 students were outsiders. It has been a submitted that the students of the institution have been given weightage of 5%. The petitioners' merit fell far below the average 65% and hence they could not be selected for admission. It has been further contended that the institution is fully en titled to hold Entrance test which is neces sary for maintaining the academic dis cipline and excellence and no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that at the time the petitioners were given admission there was no question of giving any assurance that they will be allowed to complete their education upto the last academic class available in the institution and petitioners have no right to claim admission. It is also submitted that the length of the course of study has been divided in four stages: (i) Primary Education (from Class I to V) (ii) Secondary Education (from VI to X) (iii) Senior Secondary Education (Class XI and XII) (iv) Higher Education.
(3.) IT is contended that the petitioners were admitted at the stage of Secondary Education. Their right may be confined to complete education upto that stage. Upto Class X there is a general education but from Class XI on wards several courses of study start. There are groups like. Literary Group, Science Group, Commerce Group, Agriculture Group, Technical Group, etc. Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir has been recognized only for Science Group, hence the students who are grouped for Maths and Science have been given preference. The best way of judging the capability of the students of fering Science group is to base their selec tion on the basis of marks secured by them in English, Maths and Science and also on Entrance test. Merit list has been accord ingly prepared in which petitioners stood far below and could not be selected. The test held was fair and impartial and the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the same. From appraisal of the contentions raised by the parties, the fol lowing important questions arise for con sideration: (1) Whether the writ petitions filed by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir, which is unaided private institution, is not legally maintainable? (2) Whether a student who has once been given admission in the institution has an in defeasible right to continue as student of such institution until he leaves it after passing the last academic class available there? (3) Whether the institution has a right to regulate the admission by holding "entrance test at different stages and can deny admission to its own students? Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that once a student has been given admission in an educational institu tion, he is not required to seek fresh ad mission in the next higher class after pass ing a particular class. He has right to com plete his education from the same institu tion. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal, Cambridge School and others v. Mrs. Payal Gupta and others, JT 1995 (6) SC 101. Learned counsel has further submitted that institution Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir is an institution duly recognized by the Central Board of Secondary Educa tion, Delhi which in turn is recognized and control by the Central Government through the Ministry of Human Resources and Development. The institution is dis charging public function by imparting education as contemplated under Article 41 of the Constitution of India and, there fore, it is an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The institution is carrying out an impor tant public function directly connected with the life and development of human being and the writ petition is legally main tainable against it's arbitrary and dis criminatory acts. Reliance has been placed in a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Pumima Banerjee v. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi and others, 1995 (1)UPLBEC 265.;