JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner applied on 17th November, 1989 to the Principal of the Don Bosco School in Calcutta for the admission his son in Class I for the Session 1990-91 on payment of Rs. 20/- with two self-addressed stamped envelope as per admission notice. The petitioner and his son was informed about the interview scheduled on 23rd December, 1989 between 10 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. It is stated that the son is otherwise qualified for the admission in Class I as he had been prepared for admission in the said School as per the syllabus. The petitioner with his son was present before the Interview Committee on the scheduled date and submitted duly filled in admission Form No. 427 with photographs as required. The petitioner's claims that his son's performance in the Interview was very satisfactory when he was asked questions orally in Arithmetic on subtraction as well as in writing in English. On the petitioner's query the Rector and the Principal of the Don Bosco School assured that considering the age group of the children the local candidates would be given priority, and as the petitioner resides near to the said School he was hopeful. The allegation is that the School authorities failed to communicate the result of the Interview to the petitioner though they were bound to communicate. The petitioner alleges mala fide intention on the part of the School authorities as his son was not allowed admission in the Session which is started on 22nd March, 1990. It is further alleged that taking the advantage of minority Institution or of Article 30 or the Constitution of India the School cannot refuse or deny the admission of the petitioner's son. It is further alleged that the Selection List prepared by the School authorities was not only discriminatory but violative or Article 14 of the Constitution. The allegation that the School authorities failed to consider the local residents is also repeated more than once. The petitioner goes further and alleges that the entire procedure for selection of students in Class I has been vitiate and the State Government and the Central Government have also failed to control the said institution. He further stated that the process of oral interview is defective as there is no record of performance of the candidates and as such the meritorious students like the petitioner's son was deprived of admission. 2. He further stated that the process of oral interview is defective as there is no record of performance of the candidates and as such the meritorious students like the petitioner's son was deprived of admission. 2. The petitioner states that the Don Bosco School cannot act arbitrarily as it has been receiving State Government's Dearness Allowances for teachers through the Deputy Director of School Education, Anglo-Indian Section and further the said School is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education being the Delhi Board under the control of the Ministry of Education. His contention is that the School could not refuse the admission of his son because it is an institution established and administered by a minority but not for some particular class. The petitioner waited for long and then sent a letter by registered post on 16th March, 1990 to the Assistant Principal (Primary Section) of the Don Bosco School but did not gee any reply and therefore is compelled to move the Hon'ble High Court. 3. The Principal of the Don Bosco School, respondent No.4, himself has affirmed the Affidavit-in-Opposition. The Affidavit states that the writ petition is not maintainable as the Don Bosco School is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is formally recognized by the Education Directorate or the West Bengal Government and is affiliated to the Indian Council of School Examination at New Delhi. It is specifically Stated in the said Affidavit that the School is a private and/or non-Government Educational Institution not receiving any grant-in-aid from the Government and is managed by the Christian Missionary of St. Don Bosco. His stated that the admission notice indicates that the admission to Class I is granted on merit for which the interview would be the criterion and also that there would be only one interview and no other test. The authorities prepared a list of both selected and non-selected candidates and thereafter intimated the parents/guardians in printed form whether the School would or would not be able to accommodate the child or children who had applied for admission. The authorities prepared a list of both selected and non-selected candidates and thereafter intimated the parents/guardians in printed form whether the School would or would not be able to accommodate the child or children who had applied for admission. It is further stated that a Notice was affixed in the Notice Board of the School on the 27th February, 1990 after the Interview and was stated therein that after by 9th March, 1990 if no reply was received regarding admission or otherwise of any candidate then contact should be made with the School authorities. As the petitioner's son was found not to have come not within 200 children who were successful, it was not deliberate or otherwise and there was no irregularity of any kind. It is strongly denied that the institution had any mala fide intention or motive towards the petitioner or his child. 4. The petitioner filed an Affidavit-in-Reply refuting the allegations of the respondents. He has, in particular, vehemently fell upon the School authorities for denying that they do not receive Dearness Allowances from the Stale Government. The Reply also contains a dose of sermon to the State and the Central Governments. It is mere repeatation and sometime unnecessary repeatation and reiteration of what has already been stated in the writ petition. 5. I have gone through the papers and heard the petitioner who appeared in person as well as the Advocates for the respondents including the learned Advocate for the Don Bosco School. A reading of the writ petition, the Affidavit-in-Reply and the submission made clearly indicate that an angry father is spousing the cause of his beloved son. This is but very natural but when the redressal of personal injury is required one should take the help of a surgeon to heal the wound and must not act as a surgeon though he might be a surgeon. Sentiment will obstruct the way of smooth thinking out of love and affection if the father himself takes up the cause of his son. This is exactly what has happened in this particular case. 6. The petitioner's argument it more sentimental than based on reason and logic. Throughout the writ petition he is unlashing his wrath squarely upon the Don Bosco authorities and accusing them of all sorts of mala fide motives and acts. This is exactly what has happened in this particular case. 6. The petitioner's argument it more sentimental than based on reason and logic. Throughout the writ petition he is unlashing his wrath squarely upon the Don Bosco authorities and accusing them of all sorts of mala fide motives and acts. There is no denying that the Don Bosco School is a Missionary Institution managed by the Christian Missionary of St. Don Bosco, it is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. I have dealt at length with Article 30 vis-a-vis minority institutions in the case of (1) Md. Joynal Abedin v. State of West Bengal & Others reported in 1989(2) Cal LJ 362: AIR 1990 Cal 193 and I have referred to several decisions of the Hon'bIe Supreme Court in this case. This case relates to the rights of minorities to establish and manage educational institutions as well as the nature of such rights with reference of the context. Though the allegation of the petitioner is that the Don Bosco School has been receiving State Government's Dearness Allowances for teachers but this allegation has been clearly denied by the Principal of the said School himself on oath by stating in words categorical that the School is not receiving any grant-in-aid from the Government and for its finance depends upon the Christian Missionary of St. Don Bosco, and the Court accepts it. 7. The petitioner has cited a decision in the case of (2) Francis John v. Director of School Education reported in 1989 SCC Suppl. (2) 598 where the Don Bosco School of Goa admitted that it got Grant-in-Code from the public exchequer and as such it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the writ petition by the Headmaster of the said School is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. But no such situation arises here. Two more cases cited by the petitioner require mentioning. First is the decision in (3) Allahabad St. Xavier's College Society and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in AIR 1974 SC 1389 and the other is the decision in (4) Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and Another reported in AIR 1989 SC 903 . Two more cases cited by the petitioner require mentioning. First is the decision in (3) Allahabad St. Xavier's College Society and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in AIR 1974 SC 1389 and the other is the decision in (4) Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and Another reported in AIR 1989 SC 903 . In AIR 1974 SC 1389 (Supra), the decision is confined to the scope of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution whether these Articles create separate rights while in AIR 1989 SC 903 (Supra), the question centres round the discrimination done in accommodating employees in general to the LL.B. Three-Year Degree Course. Here classes of the LL.B. Three Year Degree Course was started with the objective of accommodating employees in general but the rule was changed restricting admission to employees of Government and semi Government and similar institutions and was held discriminatory. The above cases in no way come to the rescue of the petitioner. 8. In the Admission Notice of 1990-91 Session to Class-I it was made clear in clause 1 that the sole criterion of admission would be merit based on Interview. In clause 16 it was stated that "the list of selected candidates will be made known by 1st March, 1990". In this Admission Notice it has not been stated that the selection would be made known by which method and this was left open to the School authorities The petitioner somehow obtained printed leaflet of 19th March, 1990 with expression of regret for not accommodating his ward in the School. It appears from the Annexure 'B' to the Affidavit-in-Opposition that a Notice relating to the admission to Class-I was bung up in the Notice Board by the Assistant Principal of the School to the following effect: "The result of the admission test for class I will be made known to the parents by POST. If no intimation reaches you by Friday, 9th March, kindly enquire on Saturday 10th March at the Asset. Principal's office. (8.30 a.m.-9.30 a.m.)." From another Annexure of the said Affidavit the relevant part of a Notice dated 10th March, 1990 under the signature of Assistant Principal, inter alia, appears as under : "The form numbers of the selected candidates for class-I (90-91) are given on the list. Principal's office. (8.30 a.m.-9.30 a.m.)." From another Annexure of the said Affidavit the relevant part of a Notice dated 10th March, 1990 under the signature of Assistant Principal, inter alia, appears as under : "The form numbers of the selected candidates for class-I (90-91) are given on the list. If your son’s/ward’s number does not appear on the list I regret to say that your son/ward has not been selected. Please do not approach the school authorities with further enquiries, even if the notice does not reach you. In the case of future vacancies parents will be conducted by post or by phone (according to our merit list). Further enquiries may lessen the chance for your sons’s admission." From the above two Notices as quoted it is clear that the results of the admission test was to be known to the parents by post, at the same time by other Notice it appears that the names of the selected candidates was hung in the Notice Board. The petitioner came to know the faith of his son's admission from the list but of course he did not receive the intimation by post as assured by the Assistant Principal. In my opinion he is entitled to be intimated by registered post the result of the test of his son whatever be the position. 9. One thing must be noted that the Assistant Principal is wholly unfair in writing in the said Notice telling parents and guardians that further enquiries may lessen the chance for your son's admission. This is absolutely a wrong attitude on the part of the authorities of the Don Bosco School and they should not threaten the parents and the guardians and their sons and wards with this unfair method. This snecks vengeance on the part of the School authorities towards the guardians, parents and their sons and wards. 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that the High Court cannot make any directive to the authorities of Don Bosco School to deviate from the principle of admitting students to its institution. The procedure adopted for selection is purely an internal matter of the School under the jurisdiction of the Don Bosco authorities and it is for Don Bosco to set out the modalities. The procedure adopted for selection is purely an internal matter of the School under the jurisdiction of the Don Bosco authorities and it is for Don Bosco to set out the modalities. If the Court starts interfering with the method of selection of students into educational institutions then a colossal problem will arise creating a lot of difficulties for administration, both in public and private institutions. The Court should not encourage such writ petitions where no fundamental rights are infringed or statutory provisions are violated. 11. In the circumstances the Principal or the Don Bosco School, Calcutta, respondent No.4 is directed to communicate the result of the interview for admission in Class-I (Session 1990-91) of the petitioner’s son to the petitioner whether selected or not by registered post with acknowledgement due within 25th September, 1990. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Let xerox copy of the order be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities.