JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The five Petitioners describing themselves as guardians of six children seeking admission of their wards (five to Class-I and one to Class. VI) to the Demonstration Multipurpose School of Regional College, of Education, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called the 'School') which has been established by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (hereinafter called the 'NCERT') have filed this writ application challenging the admission policy of the school and admission for the session 1984-85 as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to them, NCERT, which is being financed and controlled by the Government of India, is a State coming under the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Some of the objects for which the NCERT has been established, as would be evident from Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association (Annexure-1), are (1) to establish and conduct Regional Institutes in different parts of the country for the development of research, training and extension in general and for the development of multi-purpose secondary education in particular; and (2) to establish and conduct other institutions as may be required for the furtherance of its objectives in any part of the country. The NCERT in consonance with its objective as stated above established a school, namely, Demonstration Multi-purpose School of the Regional College of Education at Bhubaneswar. The said School issued the prospects for the year 1984-85 (Annexure-2) providing guidelines for admission into the School. The Petitioners filled up the prescribed forms seeking admission for their wards (five for Class-I and one for Class-VI). Entrance examination for admission was duly conducted in which the wards of the Petitioners appeared. According to the Petitioners, on enquiry they came to know that the Admission Committee, which decides the admission policy of the school, has already decided about the admission policy of the School in the following manner: (a) All wards of NCERT employees. (b) SC/ST students (15% + 5% of seats). (c) Disabled students (3% of seats). (d) Wards of Central Govt., Defence personnel, Central Govt. under-takings (50% of the remaining seats in order of merit). (e) General merit (open to all students not coming in category A, B, C, D (50% of the remaining seats in order of merit). (b) SC/ST students (15% + 5% of seats). (c) Disabled students (3% of seats). (d) Wards of Central Govt., Defence personnel, Central Govt. under-takings (50% of the remaining seats in order of merit). (e) General merit (open to all students not coming in category A, B, C, D (50% of the remaining seats in order of merit). (f) 5 seats will be kept for mid-term admission to be decided on the merits of the case by the Committee set up by the Counsel. (g) The number of seats in class for admission of students on the category A, B, C, D, E will not exceed 35 seats in a Section. The Petitioners contend that from the above it is evident that hardly any seats litre available for the students on the basis of merit like the wards of the Petitioners, though nowhere in the prospectus the Petitioners, were given to understand that, only few seats may be available for the students like the wards of the Petitioners; that the aforesaid reservation under Annexure-4 is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution or India and vitiates the entire process of admission to the said School; and that the reservation as envisaged above is liable to be quashed. The policy of the NCERT being for development of multipurpose secondary education in the region, such reservation as stated above deprives persons of the region to avail the advantages for which the School is established. The Petitioners claim that their wards have secured much more marks in the admission test than those who are going to be admitted to the School and such a situation is neither conducive for the development of education nor desirable. This reservation policy was not announced in the prospectus under Annexure-2. On the above grounds, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the selection list for admission into the various classes of the School and the admission policy contained in Annexure-4 or the School. They have also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to make the selection on the basis of merit alone. 2. The opposite parties in their counter have stated that the petition is not maintainable as the Petitioners have no cause of action. The admission to the School is not a matter of right which can be claimed through the courts of law. 2. The opposite parties in their counter have stated that the petition is not maintainable as the Petitioners have no cause of action. The admission to the School is not a matter of right which can be claimed through the courts of law. The School is a domestic institution established and maintained by the NCERT for its own purpose. It is not intended to cater to the public demand. There are four Regional Colleges of Education at Mysore, Ajmer, Bhubaneswar and New Delhi and the employees are transferable from one Regional College to another. To meet the needs of the children of these employees, each Regional College has a school attached to it where primary education is imparted through the medium of English language. This also facilitates inter-regional transfers of teachers and other employees. With this end in view, the NCERT have formulated the principles for admission and fixed priority by which the wards of the NCERT employees, the Central Government employees including defence personnel are given preference which is evident from Annexures.A/2 and B/2. If some seats remain vacant after admitting the children of the employees of the NCERT and of Central Government including those of defence personnel, those would be given to other persons on the basis of a competitive examination. Thus, the Petitioners have no right for admission if seats are not available and there is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The opposite parties concede that the NCERT can be regarded as 'the State' within the definition in Article 12 of the Constitution for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution. The School has not been established in furtherance of Clause 3(c) of the Memorandum of Association (Annexure-1). The School is an ancillary institution of the Regional College established under Clause 3(c) of the Memorandum of Association. According to the opposite parties, all applicants have appeared in the admission test. After publication of the result, reserve seats as fixed by the NCERT are filled up according to merit. The remaining seats are distributed half and half between the wards of Central Government employees and the general public. The student of these two categories are selected on merit. According to the opposite parties, all applicants have appeared in the admission test. After publication of the result, reserve seats as fixed by the NCERT are filled up according to merit. The remaining seats are distributed half and half between the wards of Central Government employees and the general public. The student of these two categories are selected on merit. The following table indicates admissions to different categories in the current year: Category No. of appllicants No. admitted Wards of employees 16 16 Scheduled Caste 11 11 Scheduled Tribes 5 4 Physically handicapped 2 1 Central Government employees 127 21 General including State 146 22 Government employees 307 75 It is stated by the opposite parties that the admissions are only open to Class-I and Class-V. (Oriya stream). Those who are admitted to Class. V. are usually general candidates but admissions to Class-I are regulated by reservations on account of English medium instructions meant for specialised category of applicants. Admission to all other classes including Sections A and B of Class. V. (English stream) takes place only after the handful of vacancies occur due to the promotion of students from the next lower class. Hence the question of violation of Article 14 does not arise in this case as the school is not a public institution meant for the general students but a proprietory institution meant for persons of special categories. The school is financed by the Regional College of Education from its own funds allocated by the NCERT. Petitioners have filed rejoinder in which the main contention is that the opposite parties have no right to treat the wards of their employees in a different footing from others similarly placed and admission to any institution without a qualifying test for them while test is prescribed for others is illegal, arbitrary and will certainly lower down the standard prescribed for the said classes. Admission of the wards of the employees of NCERT and Central Government employees without any qualifying test and reservation of seats for wards of the employees of NCERT and Central Government employees are without any rational nexus and preferential treatment being given to them, the same is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The opposite parties have also filed counter to the rejoinder of the Petitioners refuting the averments made in the rejoinder. 3. Mr. The opposite parties have also filed counter to the rejoinder of the Petitioners refuting the averments made in the rejoinder. 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the reservation of seats made for the wards of the employees of the NCERT without test is absolutely arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification, if any, at the first instance must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguished the class so formed from others left out of the class. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rules or the procedure that is being followed. In the present case, there is no such intelligible differentia while classifying wards of the employees of the NCERT. By creating reservations in favour of the wards of the employees of the NCERT the NCERT has acted in a discriminatory manner and the principle of equality has not been followed. He relied on the decisions reported in Prasanna Dinkar Sohale and etc. Vs. The Director-in-charge, Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur and Others. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. U.S.V. Balram, etc. Umesh Chandra Sinha Vs. V.N. Singh and Others, and Dr. Jagadish Saran and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI). He also placed reliance on the decision reported in Ajay Kumar Mittal Vs. Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar and Others where more than 50% reservation has been held to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, Mr. Dash appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the School has both primary and secondary classes. Class-I is a primary class and the medium of instruction is English. This class is meant for the children of the employees of the NCERT who are residents of the entire Eastern and North-Eastern regions comprising Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalay,' Mizoram and Arunachala Pradesh. The teachers of the Regional Colleges hail from the entire region and they are mutually transferable among the four Regional Colleges at Ajmer, Bhopal, Mysore and Bhubneswar and also with those serving in the Head-quarters at New Delhi. The children are entitled to primary education through their mother-tongue, but the NCERT is not in a position to provide primary education to the children of its employees in all the fifteen regional languages. The children are entitled to primary education through their mother-tongue, but the NCERT is not in a position to provide primary education to the children of its employees in all the fifteen regional languages. So education through English medium is provided in Class-I and the NCERT has directed admission of the wards of all their employees without any test vide Annexure-2. There can be no question about it, as the NCERT finances this school from its own funds provided in its own budget. The reservations of seats were clearly announced in the prospectus in Annexure-2. The extent of reservation cannot be announced as this is subject to veriation by the order of the NCERT. The children of the Petitioners belong to the general category and no student of this category securing less than 40.5 marks has been admitted. Thus, there is no illegality and no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relying on the decision reported in Shiva Shankar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar and Another he submitted that the reservation of seats in schools for the wards of the employees of the NCERT cannot be knocked down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the decisions cited on behalf of the Petitioners are with respect to higher education where higher standards are required and these have no application to the reservation of seats in the primary schools. 4. It is not disputed by the opposite parties that the NCERT is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The question for consideration is whether the reservation policy as contained in Annexures-4, A/2 and B/2 are discriminatory. According to the policy as announced in the above annexures, 'wards of all the employees of the NCERT' shall be admitted without test. The priority will be according to the following: 1. Wards of NCERT employees. 2. Wards of the Central Government employees including defence personnel being treated on equal footing. 3. Others if seats are available. Thus, from the above it is clear that all the seats can be filled up by the wards of the employees of NCERT and no, seat may be available for others. The NCERT is bound by the principles of equality and while admitting students to the School, the discrimination on any irrational basis is not permissible. The principles of equality no doubt allow classification. The NCERT is bound by the principles of equality and while admitting students to the School, the discrimination on any irrational basis is not permissible. The principles of equality no doubt allow classification. But such classification is permissible only when the classification is based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes the class so formed from others left out of the class. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rules or the procedure that is to be followed. In the decision reported in Prasanna Dinkar Sohale and etc. Vs. The Director-in-charge, Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur and Others where seats were reserved for the wards of the University employees, it was held: Such reservation contravened Article 14 of the Constitution. It could not be said that the welfare of the University employees would be a good basis for differentiating them from other persons who are not employees. In the first place while deciding the admission of students to the degree course the object can be (1) imparting education and (2) selection of appropriate students for the course. Secondly, the welfare of the employees cannot have any relevance while deciding this function of admitting the students to the various courses. xx xx xx The 'wards of the University employees' are thus at par with the wards of any other employees. Not only that but they are also at par with wards of other persons such as petty traders, businessmen, artisan etc. In view of this discussion, it is clear that by creating four reservations in favour of the 'wards of the University employees', the University has acted in a discriminatory manner and the principle of equality has not been followed. In Umesh Chandra Sinha Vs. V.N. Singh and Others where seats were reserved for the children of University employees on grounds of their extreme pecuniary difficulties and for rendering meritorious service to the University it was held that there is not reasonable nexus between the object intended to be achieved by the Ordinance on the one hand and the principle on which the children of the employees of the University are selected for preferential treatment on the other hand there is no reasonable classification. If the University has been It private body, there may be some justification for giving preferential treatment to the children of its own employees, but a public body which is maintained, partly at any rate, by public, funds cannot give preferential treatment to the children of its own employees without offending Article 14. In Dr. Jagadish Saran and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) where 70% reservation of seats at the post-graduate level was made for Delhi University students. Hon'ble Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. and Hon'ble Mr. O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. held: A blanket ban which is the indirect result of a wholesale reservation is constitutional hearesay. There must be substantial social justice as raison d'etre for a high percentage of alumni reservation. If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. In advanced medicine and other critical departments of higher knowledge, crucial to material progress, the people of India should not be denied the best the nation's talent lying latent can produce. The rationale of reservation must be in the case of medical students, removal of regional or class inadequacy or like disadvantage. The quantum of reservation should not be excessive or societally injurious, measured by the over all competency of the end product, viz., degree-holders. Where the human region from which the alumni of an institution are largly drawn is backward, either from the angle of opportunities for technical education or availability of medical services for the people, the provision of a high ratio or reservation hardly militates against the equality mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice. xx xx xx Institution wise reservation is constitutionally circumscribed and may become ultravires if recklessly restorted to. Until the signpost of no admission for outsiders is removed from other universities and some fair percentage of seats in other universities is left for open competition the Delhi students cannot be made martyars of the Constitution. Even so, 'reservation' must be administered in moderation, if it is to be constitutional. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance was placed on the decision reported in Shiva Shankar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar and Another. Even so, 'reservation' must be administered in moderation, if it is to be constitutional. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance was placed on the decision reported in Shiva Shankar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar and Another. In this case certain reservations were made to extend facilities to school employees to attract efficient teachers for efficient running of the school which was in a remote corner where facilities for wards of employees even upto secondary standard were not available. It was held: To reserve seats in colleges for the University education and specially in technical lines cannot be equated with giving of facilities for school education to the children of the employees of the school. On the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, without affecting the accommodation of sixty seats in each class, and without incurring any extra expenditure, the Government has extended the facility to the employees of the school, strictly speaking, not by increasing the number of seats in the school or in the boarding house, but by allowing admission of day scholars to the maximum limits of twelve in each class, of students who are the wards of the school employees. It is not that twelve seats have been increased in a particular class, it is just by way of special facility that it has been decided by the Government that children of the school employees, formerly the number fixed was two for each employees, which has been made three now, can be admitted into the school and the extend of such facility has been fixed at twelve in each class. The very fact that only 26, out of the total 72 seats which recently made the figure 36, were filled up, shows that it was not a case of increasing seats in the school, but it was a case of giving special facilities by way of service condition to the employees of the school. The Petitioner's stand that if all the seats in a particular class were not so filled up, he should be given one such seat, is not tenable, as, in my opinion, it is not correct to say on the facts of this case, that the number of seats increased by the Government in a particular class is from sixty to seventy-two. I do not think, therefore, that the reservation of seats for the children of the school employees can or should not be knocked down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Basing on this decision, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the reservation made for higher education where higher standard is required cannot be equated with the school education and the decisions cited by the Petitioners have no application to this case. 5. In this case the D.M. School, Bhubaneswar, is managed by the NCERT. The NCERT is being financed and controlled by the Government of India and the objects for which the Council has been established have been set out in Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association vide Annexure-I. Apart from other objects which are set out in Clause 3, the objects of the Council (1) to establish and conduct Regional Institutes in different parts of the country for the development of research, training and extension in general, and for the development of multi-purpose secondary education In particular; (2) to take over or amalgamate with any other Society, Institute or Association having objects wholly or in part similar to the objects of the Society, and to aid any such-existing institution in such manner as the Governing Body of the Council may think fit; and (3) to establish and conduct other institutions as may be required for the furtherance of its objectives in any part of the country, as envisaged in Sub-clauses (e) to (g) of Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association. It is urged that the NCERT would have full powers to make provision for the benefit of its employees. In our view, those powers cannot form a basis for making a class (wards of the employees of the NCERT) while admitting the students to the educational courses. So, while working in the field of running a school or an institution, the object would be to admit students in a fair and equitable manner. According to the admission' policy, priority will be given to all the wards of the employees of the NCERT, that means it may so happen that all the seats may be filled up by the wards of the employees on a priority basis and no seat may be available for others. According to the admission' policy, priority will be given to all the wards of the employees of the NCERT, that means it may so happen that all the seats may be filled up by the wards of the employees on a priority basis and no seat may be available for others. It is well settled that such classification is permissible only if two conditions exist, namely at the first instance the classification must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes the class so formed from others left out of the class, secondly, the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rules or the procedure that is being followed. The decision reported in Shiva Shankar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, has no application to the facts and circumstances of to the present case, in that case the reservation was for a particular number of seats, but in this case that is not so. There is a blanket reservation even for all the seats for the wards of the employees of the NCERT on priority basis even without test, as would be evident from Annexures-A/2 & B/2. So, in our view the decisions reported in Prasanna Dinkar Sohale and etc. Vs. The Director-in-charge, Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur and Others The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. U.S.V. Balram, etc. Umesh Chandra Sinha v. N.N. Singh and Ors. Umesh Chandra Sinha Vs. V.N. Singh and Others Dr. Jagadish Saran and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), cited by the Petitioners have full application to the present case. In view of this, we hold, that the reservation of seats for the wards of the employees of the NCERT without any test on priority basis is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.. 6. As it appears, 16 students of the employees of NCERT have already been admitted without test and they have already studied for about six months and their courses will be completed within a few months. In the circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to quash their admission. However, we are told that 15 seats are still available. 6. As it appears, 16 students of the employees of NCERT have already been admitted without test and they have already studied for about six months and their courses will be completed within a few months. In the circumstances, we do not think it appropriate to quash their admission. However, we are told that 15 seats are still available. We, therefore, direct that the students who appealed in the preliminary test including the wards of the Petitioners, if they want to take admission into Class I of the School, be admitted into the School in the vacant seats according to merit on the basis of their marks obtained in the preliminary test. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that Arulipi, the ward of Petitioner No. 1, has already been admitted to Class VI and there is no difficulty in admitting Asutosh, the ward of Petitioner No. 2. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds with the above observation. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. K.P. Mohapatra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed