Judgment :- 1. Petitioners challenge denial of admission to their wards to school run by the respondents 2 and 3, shortly called 'FACT' hereinafter. FACT runs five schools known as the High School, Eastern U. P. School, Central U.P. School, Western U.P. School and Western L.P. School. Two of these are aided schools, while the other three are unaided schools. The cost of running these is funded by the FACT and some other sponsoring companies. According to FACT, the cost of running the schools works out to Rs. 4,000/- per student. The FACT has entered into agreement with sponsoring companies who contribute to the cost of running the schools. In consideration of this, children of employees of sponsoring companies, are admitted to the schools. Some of these companies have since backed out of their obligation to contribute to the running of the schools. 2. Ext. P1 shows that students are divided into three categories. The first category consists of children of employees of FACT, and second category children of employees of sponsoring companies. There is a third category, open to the public, into which children who do not belong to the two categories are admitted. 3. According to petitioners, who are employees of other companies, who once were sponsorers and no longer are, their children were denied admission solely on the basis of parentage. FACT falls within the ambit of Art.12 as has been held in Sophie's Case (1984 KLT 32). Therefore, it is argued that classification based on parentage behoves not, an authority under Art.12, as it is violative of the mandates of Art.14. 4. The question for consideration is whether exclusion of children of employees of other companies, from the category of public, is based on reasonable classification. According to FACT, it is. Their contention is that the quota for the public is intended for children of poor persons in the locality, whose good will is essential for them, for reasons more than one. While FACT incurs considerable cost for running the schools, only a nominal amount is charged as fee from children in this category. Fee charged ranges from Rs. 360/- to Rs. 885/- depending on the class. The rest of the cost is subsidised, in a manner of speaking. While FACT incurs considerable cost for running the schools, only a nominal amount is charged as fee from children in this category. Fee charged ranges from Rs. 360/- to Rs. 885/- depending on the class. The rest of the cost is subsidised, in a manner of speaking. Employees of other companies who get education allowance for their children, cannot avail of this benefit intended for children, who form a separate class, according to counsel for FACT. It is also suggested, . that after receiving educational allowance from the employer companies, thus saving the companies cost of sponsoring-an arrangement that suits both the companies and employees -the employees are trying to take advantage by claiming admission in the quota for public. Thus, the classification is sought to be justified. 5. According to petitioners, the classification is not reasonable and amounts to hostile discrimination, which is opposed to rule of law and equality enshrined in the Constitution. I do not think that the classification is unreasonable. It will be open to the FACT to run the school exclusively for the benefit of children of their employees. That, they have earmarked a quota for the public, does not mean that they cannot make a further classification, if classification is reasonable. The very poor people of the locality are taken care of by the Scheme, according to FACT partly for humanitarian reasons and partly for reasons not wholly altruistic because they want to keep local people happy. This is not an instance of excluding children of employees of other companies, on grounds of parentage. Parentage is considered only for purpose of income. Income range of parent is taken note of, and not parentage itself. Classification on the basis of income of parent or family is permissible, and is a well known situation in many contexts, including professional college admissions. The classification is thus reasonable and does not offend the mandates of Art.14, as it is based on reasonable criteria, and equality cannot be extended to approximating or assimilating unequals. For the foregoing reasons, the original petition is without merit and is dismissed. No costs.