JUDGMENT : M.P. Menon, J. 1. The petitioner is the Manager of an aided High school. When staff fixation was ordered for the year 1980-81, as per Ext. P-1 dated 31st July 1980, the D.E.O. noticed that the strength of Standard VIII in the school was 286. This was sufficient to sanction seven divisions for the standard, by applying Chap.6 R.23 of the Kerala Education Rules; but the Officer sanctioned only six divisions on the ground that the school authorities had managed to keep the strength at such a high level by detaining more students in the class at the end of the previous academic year, than was permissible under departmental instructions. According to Ext. P-4 circular of the D.P.I., issued in 1973, detentions in Std. VIII of a school were not to exceed 15 to 20 per cent in any year; and as explained in the counter affidavit, the school authorities should have promoted at least 14 more pupils of Std. VIII during 1979-80, to conform to the said percentage. It was after deducting the “excess detention” and applying other relevant consideration, the D.E.O. had declined to sanction the additional division. 2. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Dy. Director and also the Jt. Director, but both these authorities adhered to the view that the percentage fixed in Ext. P-4 was more or less sacrosanct, and that where excess detention was made, the number of pupils so involved had to be excluded for the purpose of fixing the roll strength and effective strength of a standard. Exts. P-2. and P-3 are the relevant orders, and this writ petition is directed against Exts. P-1 to P-3. 3. It is easy to see that Ext. P-4 was issued by the D.P.I. partly at least for checking the tendency of aided schools to detain large number of students every year, just to ensure that as many divisions as possible were got sanctioned at the time of staff fixation in the following year, though the ostensible purpose of the circular was “to reduce the problem of enormous wastage and stagnation at school stage.” Teachers in aided schools are paid by the Government, and when aided school managements display a tendency to inflate requirements of teaching staff, it is the State's coffers that is affected. Looked at from this stand-point alone, the object of Ext. Looked at from this stand-point alone, the object of Ext. P-4 may be laudable; but promotion by fixed percentages from class to class leads to a situation where a large number of substandard students appear for the final S.S.L.C. examination, and as a result, in spite of even severe doze of “moderation” (which in effect means grant of charity marks to inflate the real result), the percentage of pass at that level remains low. But these are matters of policy and resources, and the Courts have probably very little to do with them. 4. The legal question however remains whether the directions in Ext. P-4 can prevail over the prescriptions of the statutory rules. Sub-r.(1) and (2) of R.13 of Chap.8 of the Kerala Education rules are relevant in this context, and they read: “13. Promotions and Detentions - (1) Promotions shall be made to the next higher standard on the basis of the pupil's performance as assessed by periodical tests and on the basis of final examination. (2) The Headmaster in the case of all types of schools shall intimate the basis of promotion for each standard to the Educational Officer sufficiently early and get his approval therefore and shall enter the approved basis in the Mark Register over his signature.” 5. Plainly these prescription do not contemplate or permit fixing of absolute percentages in the matter of pass and detention without a reasonable assessment of the performance of the pupils. The basis of promotions is performance alone under sub-r.(1) and under sub-r.(2), the Educational Officers could probably see that arbitrary standards of performances are not fixed by the school authorities. Once however the “basis” is communicated to the Educational Officer and it is approved and promotions and detentions are accordingly made, there is no scope at all for suggesting that the same could still be held to be irregular, for not conforming to the “percentage rule” in Ext. P-4. The instructions issued by the D.P.I. cannot affect the operation of R.13. When once students are declared passed or are detained after following the procedure in R.13 of Chap.8, it cannot be said that for the purposes of R.23 of Chap.6, the position could be ignored. The Act and the rules have to be read and administered as a whole. The instructions issued by the D.P.I. cannot affect the operation of R.13. When once students are declared passed or are detained after following the procedure in R.13 of Chap.8, it cannot be said that for the purposes of R.23 of Chap.6, the position could be ignored. The Act and the rules have to be read and administered as a whole. Where students are detained in a standard in accordance with the provisions of Chap.8, the Educational authorities cannot, for the purposes of another Chapter of the rules, ignore part of those detentions. In the above view, I am constrained to set aside Exts. P-1 to P-3 in so far as they failed to accept the Manager's case that during the year 1980-81, seven divisions should have been sanctioned for Standard VIII. The 3rd respondent will examine the question of approving the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 on the basis that the school was entitled to claim seven divisions for the standard. No costs.