Judgment :- During the middle of this academic year, petitioner's son Haksar (aged 14) sought for admission to X th standard in St. John De-Britto High School, Fort Cochin (hereinafter referred to as "the third respondent school"). But the Headmaster refused to admit him. This Original Petition is for a writ of mandamus commanding the headmaster to admit Haksar to Standard-X in the said school. 2. Petitioner approached the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam (D.E.O.) with a complaint that the headmaster has improperly denied admission to his son Haksar. The D.E.O. thereupon passed Ext. P7 order directing the Headmaster to admit the student on production of a transfer certificate from the school where Haksar studied hitherto. But Ext. P7 was not complied with by the Headmaster. Hence petitioner prays for a further relief that the D.E.O. be commanded to implement Ext. P7 order. 3. Haksar was studying in R.M.H.S.,Vadavucode. Since his mother has certain heart conditions, his father (the petitioner) desires Haksar to join the third respondent school as its location is near his residence. He learnt that a seat is available in X th standard in the third respondent school. But the Headmaster refused to admit him and sneeringly told him to seek admission in any Muslim school. On 16-8-90, petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent (D.E.O.) for taking necessary steps to admit his son in the third respondent school. The first respondent wrote an order in the application on 16-8-90 directing the Headmaster to admit Haksar to Xth standard in third respondent school. A transfer certificate was issued from R.M.H.S.,Vadavucode on 17-8-90 (Ext. P3) presumably on the request made by the petitioner. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Headmaster of the third respondent school, it is contended, inter alia, that his school is a recognised Anglo-Indian School governed by the Rules framed by the Government for Anglo-Indian Schools in Kerala State. He also claims protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution as the school is a minority school. The important contention urged is that the third respondent school is not covered by the provisions of Kerala Education Act and Rules. He strongly denied the insinuation cast on him that he suggested to the petitioner to seek admission in a Muslim school. He also claims protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution as the school is a minority school. The important contention urged is that the third respondent school is not covered by the provisions of Kerala Education Act and Rules. He strongly denied the insinuation cast on him that he suggested to the petitioner to seek admission in a Muslim school. He points out that a good number of students in his school belongs to Muslim community and hence there is no basis for the allegation. He also points out that there are two English medium schools situated closer to the petitioner's residence, namely, Sree Gujarathi Vidyalaya High School and T.D. High School. His further contention is that during the last 26 years no student has been admitted to Xth standard in his school. According to him, a number of parents had approached him for admission for (heir children to Xth standard in this school even during this academic year, but on principle of discipline and proper conduct of the school none of them is admitted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the third respondent school, being an aided school, is covered by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act (for short 'the act) and the Rules ('K.E.R.'for short). S.3 of the Act shows that it is the function of the Government to provide facilities for general education. Chapter VI of the K.E.R. deals with admission, transfer and removal of pupils. Rule 6 of the said Chapter enjoins a duty on the authority of every school, whether aided or recognised, to admit a pupil who applies for admission accompanied by a transfer certificate duly issued from any school. Learned counsel contended that since Haksar is an eligible student to get admission in the Xth standard, the headmaster has no right to deny admission to him under Rule 6 when he applies for admission together with a transfer certificate duly issued from R.M.H.S.,Vadavucode. 6. There is no dispute that the third respondent school is an, Anglo-Indian School. Government of Kerala have made special rules for Anglo-Indian Schools in Kerala. Such rules were published in Kerala Gazette No. 37 dated 10th September, 1974. These rules have been produced for my perusal. 7. The first question to be considered is whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules in K.E.R. are applicable to the third respondent school 8. Government of Kerala have made special rules for Anglo-Indian Schools in Kerala. Such rules were published in Kerala Gazette No. 37 dated 10th September, 1974. These rules have been produced for my perusal. 7. The first question to be considered is whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules in K.E.R. are applicable to the third respondent school 8. S.38 of the Act says that "nothing in this Act shall apply to any school which is not a Government school or a private school". "Private school" as defined in S.2(7) of the Act means an aided or recognised school. The expression "aided school" is defined in S.2(1) of the Act. It means "a private school which is recognised by and is receiving aid from the Government, but shall not, include educational institutions entitled to receive grants under Article 337 of the Constitution of India, except in so far as they are receiving aid in excess of the grants which they are so entitled". It is contended that the third respondent school is not an aided school falling within S.2(1) of the Act. Article 337 of the Constitution is a special provision with respect to educational grants for the benefit of Anglo-Indian community. It is not disputed that the third respondent school was receiving grants from the Government. The first proviso in Article 337 of the Constitution reads thus: "Provided that at the end of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution such grants, to the extent to which they are a special concession to the Anglo-Indian community, shall cease". 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in as much as the third respondent school is not now entitled to receive grants, the school would have been fallen to the purview of 'aided school" as defined in S.2(1) of the Acton the expiry of the period of ten years from the commencement of the constitution. I do not think that such a restrictive meaning need be attached to the exclusion limb in S.2(1) of the Act. All the educational institutions which were entitled to receive grants under Article 337 of the Constitution were excluded from the purview of aided school. The entitlement to receive grants under Article 337 of the Constitution is subject to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Article itself. All the educational institutions which were entitled to receive grants under Article 337 of the Constitution were excluded from the purview of aided school. The entitlement to receive grants under Article 337 of the Constitution is subject to the restrictions and limitations contained in the Article itself. Of course, the Article has limited the entitlement to a period often years from the commencement of the Constitution. It docs not mean that on the expiry often years, the educational institution would cease to remain under Article 337 of the Constitution. There is no reason to think that the third respondent school is an aided school within the purview of S.2(1) of the Act. 10. It was next contended that if it is not an aided school, it must be treated as a recognised school. S.2(8) of the Act defines "recognised school" as "a private school recognised by the Government under this Act". Ii is the definite case of the third respondent that this school had never been recognised by the Government under the Act. The argument appears to be sound. The Special Rules framed by the Government of Kerala is for application to Anglo-Indian Schools in the State of Kerala. Those rules are noticeably different from the rules in the K.E.R. As the Government have permitted Anglo-Indian Schools to be governed by special rules formulated by the Government, it is clear that the Government have not recognised the third respondent-school as a private school under the Act. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the petitioner's son cannot compel the Headmaster of the third respondent school to admit him on the principle envisaged in Rule 6 in Chapter VI of the K.E.R. 12. Learned counsel for the third respondent further contended that even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the Headmaster of the third respondent school to admit the petitioner's son to Xth standard. According to the learned counsel, petitioner wields much political influence and hence he could easily procure an order like Ext. P7 from an educational authority like the D.E.O. He pointed out that even when the Headmaster declined to admit him in the school, petitioner procured a transfer certificate from R.M.H.S., Vadavucode, by representing that he is proceeding to the third respondent school. P7 from an educational authority like the D.E.O. He pointed out that even when the Headmaster declined to admit him in the school, petitioner procured a transfer certificate from R.M.H.S., Vadavucode, by representing that he is proceeding to the third respondent school. The third respondent is not prepared to believe that the desire of the petitioner, at this odd stage of an academic year, has been influenced by the heart conditions of his wife. It is alleged that the petitioner's son was compelled to leave his erstwhile school due to reasons of discipline. 13. I do not wish to express my opinion on those contentions since the Original Petition can be disposed of on the first point that the third respondent school docs not come within the Kerala Education Act and Rules. The Original Petition is dismissed.