JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The petitioner, City Montessori School Society, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, has sought a writ of mandamus to command the State Government to issue`No Objection Certificate' which will enable it to obtain affiliation from the Central Board of Secondary Education or from the Indian Council of Secondary Education, Delhi in respect of the three institutions run by it. The petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated. 2. The petitioner, Society is running 14 educational institutions at Lucknow for imparting education upto the level of Class 10. Out of these 14 institutions there are following institutions : - (i) City Montessori School, Station Road, (ii) City Montessori School, Chowk, (iii) City Montessori School, Rajendra Nagar, (iv) City Montessori School, Mahanagar, and (v) City Montessori School, R.D.S.O. 3. The first two educational institutions are imparting education to the children upto junior High School level while the latter three are imparting education upto the level of High School. The petitioner sought affiliation from the Central Board of Secondary Education, for short `Central Board' in respect of the five institutions mentioned herein above. The Central Board through its letter dated 28-5-81, Annexure No. 1, asked the petitioner to submit `No Objection Certificate' from the Education Department of the State of U.P. so that its application for affiliation could be considered. The petitioner, accordingly, addressed an application on 9-6-1981 to the Education Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow, Annexure No. 2. In this application the petitioner pointed out that the concerned institutions had shown excellent results in the previous years and most of the children studding in the institutions were wards of Central Government Employees whose services were transferable throughout the country and therefore, they wanted their children to be educated through the medium of English language so that their wards may not face language problem when they are transferred to other states. It was also pointed out that the parents of the students were impressing upon the institutions that instructions in the higher technical institutions were also being given in English language and therefore, it was desirable that their wards be also given instructions through the medium of English - Eventually, the State Government issued `No Objection Certificate' in respect of the first two institutions mentioned here in above but through its order dated 28-6-86, Annexure No. 8 to the petitioner's affidavit dated 1-7-86, it refused to give `No Objection Certificate' in respect of the latter three institutions. In the letter of refusal two grounds have been mentioned for refusing the certificate. The first ground is that the institutions were already recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and students of these institutions had been appearing at the High School Examinations conducted by the said Board for the last several years. The second ground is that they can be provided the facility of taking their examination through the medium of English language even without obtaining affiliation from the Council for Indian School Certificate. It appears that originally the petitioner had sought affiliation from the Central Board of Secondary Education but latter a No Objection Certificate' was requested so as to enable the petitioner to obtain affiliation in the alternative from the Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, for short, `Indian Council'. The petitioner submits that neither of the grounds on which certificate has been refused, is relevant and therefore, the Order of State Government is arbitrary, illegal mala fide, unjust and discriminatory. In support of the plea that the order is discriminatory the petitioner pointed out that Colvin Taluqdars College, Lucknow is also recognised by the U.P. Board but the State Government issued `No Objection Certificate' to the said college, which has, on the strength of this certificate been able to obtain affiliation from the Indian Council. 4. The petition has been opposed on behalf of the State whose learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner does not have a legal right to claim `No Objection Certificate' and therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. The plea of discrimination is sought to be repelled by pointing out that the position of Colvin Taluqdars College, Lucknow is entirely different from that of the petitioner. The plea of discrimination is sought to be repelled by pointing out that the position of Colvin Taluqdars College, Lucknow is entirely different from that of the petitioner. It has been stated in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated 31-7-86 filed by Sri Tara Chand Pant, Section Officer, Education Department that Colvin Taluqudars College has got its own building, spacious campus and the play ground. It is further pointed out that two parallel institutions are being run in the same campus with separate Principal and separate teaching staff and infrastructure. In the same paragraph it is also stated that the petitioner's institutions do not have their own buildings and play grounds. It is, therefore, pleaded on behalf of the State that the impugned order is neither arbitrary, illegal, unjust nor discriminatory. 5. It is not disputed between the parties that the three institutions in respect of which`No Objection Certificate' has been refused, are recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education constituted under Section 3 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. This Board is a statutory body and it has, under Section 15 of the Act, power to make regulations. Under Section 7 (&) the Board has power to prescribe course of instructions, text-books and other books and instructions material for High School and Intermediate classes, in such branches of education as it thinks fit. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 the Board conducts examination at the end of High School and Intermediate courses. Under sub-Section (2) it grants diplomas and certificates to successful candidates. Under Sub-section (4) it recognises the institutions for the purpose of preparing the candidates to appear at the examinations conducted by the Board. It is in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (4) of the Section 7 that the three institutions were also recognised by the Board. Under sub-Section (2) it grants diplomas and certificates to successful candidates. Under Sub-section (4) it recognises the institutions for the purpose of preparing the candidates to appear at the examinations conducted by the Board. It is in exercise of the power conferred under Sub-section (4) of the Section 7 that the three institutions were also recognised by the Board. In exercise of the power to frame regulations conferred Under Section 15 (c) the Board has framed Regulation 8 occurring in Chapter 7 which lays down as Follows: " 8- izR;sd ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk fuEufyf[kr dk vuqikyu djsxh%& ( p ) tc rd fd 'kklu }kjk fdlh ekeys dks fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s vU;Fkk vkns'k u fn;s tk;sa] og fdlh izfr}Unh ijh{kk " gkbZ Ldwy vFkok bUVjehfM,V " ds fy, ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks rS;kj ugha djsxh] vkSj u muesa cSBus nsxh] tc fd mlh izdkj dh rFkk leku Lrj dh ijh{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk vk;ksftr dh tkrh gksA ;g 'krZ ekU;rk izkIr vkaXy Hkkjrh; fo|ky;ksa ds lEcU/k esa bfUM;u Ldwy lfVZfQdsV ijh{kk ij ykxw ugha gksxhA " 6. Rendered in English the Regulation provides as follows : - "Unless, keeping in view special circumstances of a particular ease the State Government issues an order otherwise, no school will either prepare students or allow them to appear in any other parallel examinations High School or Intermediate) when the same level of examinations are being run by the Board. This provision will not apply to recognised Anglo Indian Schools allowing its students to appear in Indian School Certificate Examinations." 7. As against the U.P. Board, the Central Board and the Indian Council are not statutory bodies. They have, however, framed their own Rules governing the grant of affiliation by them. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the instructions issued by the Indian Council as Annexure No. 10 to its supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 3-7-1986. Paragraph 2 of these instructions reads as follows "Schools seeking affiliation to the Council for its examinations (I.S.C./1CSE.) will have to submit to the council a certificate of recommendation/No Objection Certificate from the State Education Department in the prescribed form. These forms are supplied by the Council, on application, to schools which have started Standard VII." There are other conditions prescribed for the grant of affiliation but we are not concerned with them in the present petition. 8. These forms are supplied by the Council, on application, to schools which have started Standard VII." There are other conditions prescribed for the grant of affiliation but we are not concerned with them in the present petition. 8. Neither the Indian Council is a statutory body nor the instructions issued by it are statutory. However, the petitioners claim is not based merely on the instructions issued by the Council. The claim is based also on Regulation 8 framed by the Board which has statutory force. In view of the fact that three institutions in question are already recognised by the U.P. Board, the petitioner can obtain affiliation in respect of parallel examination conducted by any other body only if the State Government permits it to do so. It can not be disputed that the examinations conducted by the Central Board or the Indian Council are examinations parallel to these conducted by the U.P. Board. Under the statutory provision, therefore, it became necessary for the petitioner to approach the State Government for `No Objection Certificate' apart from the requirement contained in the instructions and in the letter dated 28th May, 1981. Annexure No. 1, When power has been reserved in favour of the State Government to grant `No Objection Certificate' under Regulation-8 it cannot be said that the petitioner has no right to approach the State Government to grant the said Certificate. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner has no legal right for the vindication of which he may be entitled to file writ petition, cannot be accepted. We are accordingly of the opinion that the writ petition is maintainable. 9. Since the power to grant or refuse `No Objection Certificate, flows from statutory provision contained in Regulation 8 it will have to be exercised by the State Government on relevant considerations. If the exercise of the power is not based on relevant considerations the resultant order will be illegal. We have already indicated here in above the two grounds on which `No Objection Certificate' has been refused. We may, now proceed to consider whether these grounds are relevant or irrelevant. 10. As already noticed, the first ground for refusal of the certificate is that the three institutions are already recognised by the U.P. Board. We have already indicated here in above the two grounds on which `No Objection Certificate' has been refused. We may, now proceed to consider whether these grounds are relevant or irrelevant. 10. As already noticed, the first ground for refusal of the certificate is that the three institutions are already recognised by the U.P. Board. The necessity for obtaining `No Objection Certificate' arises from recognition accorded by U.P. Board, in view of Regulation 8 reproduced above. If Regulation 8 were not there, there would have been no statutory requirement of approaching the State Government. In the circumstances the first ground for refusal is illusory and cannot be sustained. 11. In paragraph 15 (e) of the amended writ petition the petitioner has stated that the Books prescribed for various subjects by the U.P. Board are in Hindi and no books have been prescribed in English language and even English translation of the prescribed books are not available. It is further mentioned that the only facility allowed by the U.P. Board to English medium students is that English translation of questions formulated in Hindi is provided to them. Paragraph 15 (e) has been replied to through paragraph 6 of the State's supplementary counter affidavit dated 31-7-1986. In this paragraph the facts mentioned in paragraph 15(e) referred to herein before have not been controverted. This, therefore, establishes that although facility is provided by the U.P. Board to students desiring to take their examination through the medium of English language by providing them question papers in English, there are no prescribed books available in English language in the various subjects. Under Section 7 (1) it is the U.P. Board which prescribes the text books. If the U.P. Board has not prescribed text-books in English language the teachers will have difficulty in imparting instructions in English language and the students too will have difficulty in preparing themselves for the examination. The second ground for refusing the `No Objection Certificate' is also accordingly illusory. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained on either of the grounds mentioned therein. 12. The State has right to point out that the petitioner is not similarly situated as Colvin Taluqdars College and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to raise the plea of discrimination. The second ground for refusing the `No Objection Certificate' is also accordingly illusory. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained on either of the grounds mentioned therein. 12. The State has right to point out that the petitioner is not similarly situated as Colvin Taluqdars College and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to raise the plea of discrimination. In order to differentiate the case of Colvin Taluqudars College it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the said college has got its own building, spacious campus, play ground, separate Principals, separate teaching staff and infrastructure. In the impugned order it has not been stated by the State Government that the petitioner is lacking in any of these facilities. Lack of a proper building, proper play ground, proper campus may be relevant considerations for refusing `No Objection Certificate'but in the present case the said factors do not appear to have been taken into account by the State Government while refusing the `No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner. 13. It appears that when this petition came up for orders as regards admission before Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. on 4-7-1986, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to meet the first ground for refusal of `No Objection Certificate' by making the following statement which has been incorporated in the Court's order dated July 4, 1986 : - "Sri K.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a statement before this Court that if in consequence of the `No Objection Certificate' issued by the Government, the petitioner's aforesaid institutions succeed in obtaining affiliation with the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, they would not maintain their affiliation with the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education." 14. In view of this statement, petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 1940 of 1983 and 944 of 1985 got their petitions connected with the present petition. Their learned counsel expressed the apprehension that in case-the petitioner obtains recognition from the U.P. Board in respect of the institutions in question, the staff and the students would sutler inasmuch as the staff may he retrenched and the students may have to be ousted from the institutions. Their learned counsel expressed the apprehension that in case-the petitioner obtains recognition from the U.P. Board in respect of the institutions in question, the staff and the students would sutler inasmuch as the staff may he retrenched and the students may have to be ousted from the institutions. Writ Petition No. 1940 of 1983 has been filed by Nine persons and is directed against the State of U.P., Director of Education, U.P., District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and the Committee of Management, City Montessori Schools. These petitioners were teaching in various institutions run by the petitioner and they were transferred from one institution to another. It has been stated by them that when they reported for duty at the transferred institution they were required to give an undertaking which was uncalled for and when they declined to given the undertaking, they were not allowed to join. The petitioners assert that their transfer orders virtually amount to termination of their services. These petitioners approached the District inspector of Schools who cancelled the transfer orders. However, the order of the District Inspector of Schools was not heeded to by the petitioner. The petitioners have, therefore, sought a writ of mandamus to command the State to appoint an Authorised Controller for the City Montessori School at Maha Nagar, Rajendra Nagar and R.D.S.O. udder the provisions of Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 15. In writ petition No. 944 of 1985 apart from praying for a mandamus to command the State to appoint an Authorised Controller for the City Montessori Schools situated at Mahanagar and Rejendra Nagar, the petitioner has prayed for a further mandamus to command the Opposite parties to enforce the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 21-3-83 to reinstate the petitioners in service and hold them entitled to all the benefits available under the U.P. Intermediate Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. Services of the five petitioners in this petition were terminated. They approached the District Inspector of Schools who by his order dated 21-3-83 allowed their representations and hold that the termination of their services was illegal. This order too has not been honoured by the Management of the City Montessori Schools. 16. Services of the five petitioners in this petition were terminated. They approached the District Inspector of Schools who by his order dated 21-3-83 allowed their representations and hold that the termination of their services was illegal. This order too has not been honoured by the Management of the City Montessori Schools. 16. The dispute raised in writ petitions No. 1940 of 1983 and 944 of 1985 is not identical or similar to the dispute raised in writ petition No. 4129 of 1986. Therefore, these two petitions are being diked from the last petition. We have referred to them only to indicate how these petitions came to be connected with the present petition. Sri S.C. Misra who appears for the Management of City Montessori Schools in Writ Petition No. 1940 of 1983 and Writ Petition No. 944 of 1985, pressed that these petitions cannot be heard as the dispute raised in these petitions is 'engaging attention of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. It is not necessary for us at this stage to make any observation on this plea. At this stage we only can say that the dispute raised in these two petitions, is different from the dispute raised in Writ Petition No. 4129 of 1986 and therefore, these two petitions are not required to be disposed of along with the present petition. 17. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Government dated 28-6-86, Annexure No. 8, is hereby quashed. The State Government shall reconsider the petitioner's application for the grant of `No Objection Certificate' in accordance with Law and on relevant considerations as indicated here in above. There shall be no order as to costs.