R. C. LAHOTI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner a minor student, acting through his father, has filed this petition on 17. 9. 1993 seeking a Writ of Certiorari setting aside the order of the respondent No. 3 an educational institution detaining the petitioner in the XI class treating him not entitled to promotion to XII class and a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his studies in XII class and also allow him to appear in CBSE Board examinations of XII standard. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3, The Army Public School is an educational institution of which the respondent No. 4 is the Principal. The respondent No. 1, UOI has been unnecessarily joined as a party to the petition presumably under a misapprehension of the petitioner that the UOI (through its Department of Education) had something to do with the institution. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, through Director of Education also appears to be an unnecessary party in view of the stand taken by the other respondent that it was not receiving any grant-in-aid from the education department. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a civilian. The educational institution respondent No. 3 though primarily intended to cater to the educational needs of children of the army personnel accommodates children of civilian also. The petitioner was admitted in the school right from K. G. class and had continued to prosecute his studies till class XI. In the board examination of Class X he had secured 56% marks. In march, 1993 he had appeared for class XI examination but he could obtain an agregate of 35% marks only. He was allowed to take retest in two subjects i. e. mathematics and economics. The result of the retest was placed "under consideration" and ultimately he was declared to have been detained in class XI in view of his having not succesfully cleared the retest. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the new Principal of the institution was not behaving properly, more so with the civilians. The parents of the petitioner had lodged complaint of the Principal with the management and that had further annoyed him. According to the petitioner he was delebrately detained inspite of his having good academic records for the previous years. The parents of the petitioner had lodged complaint of the Principal with the management and that had further annoyed him. According to the petitioner he was delebrately detained inspite of his having good academic records for the previous years. The petitioner has also complained of discrimination as other students similarly situtated as the petitioner were either allowed promotion to class XII or were issued transfer certificates entiting them to admission in class XII in other educational institutions of their own choice. ( 5 ) THE respondents No. 3 and 4 have in their written statement denied all the material averments made by the petitioner. According to them the educational institution maintains high standards of education. The students who take the board examination are carefully screened at class IX and class XI and if they are not likely to do well at the board examination, are detained based on their performance over the year. As per existing policy promotion to higher class from class IX and class XI are granted to students securing 40% in agreegate and 40% in individual subjects. In the academic year 1992- 93 the management had decided to reduce the standard of 40% to 35% and to all the students securing less than 35% marks in not P{=3 more than two subjects to take retest in those subjects. The pass percentage for the retest was further reduced to 33% and the students who did not meet this criteria were obviously detained in the same class. The petitioner had secured 11% marks in mathematics and 23% marks in economics at the retest. The petitioner was found weak throughout the academic year. No student below the level of performance as fixed by the policy was promoted to Class XII. In the matter of wards of serving personnel who led a distured domestic life and did not get a chance of studing in one school continuously, if their performance was not upto mark entitling them for promotion to higher standard, the parents were given an option of either retaining their wards in the school by being detained in the same class or of being issued the transfer certificate of higher class so that they could seek admission in other schools. This policy was also discontinued w. e. f. 12. 7. 1993 as it was earning a bad name for the institution. This policy was also discontinued w. e. f. 12. 7. 1993 as it was earning a bad name for the institution. ( 6 ) AS to the charge of discrimination labelled by the petitioner the respondents have stated on affidavit that in spitse of the policy of issuing transfer certificates for higher class having been discontinued, there were two exceptions to be found. One is the case of Ambika Prasad Kapoor, student of Class XI-G who was a physicaly handicapped, also suffering medically and hence accommodated on humanitarian considerations. The other was the case of Master Jasbir Singh and Master Rajbir Singh, both sons of Mehant Seva Dass Singh who had come from a rural background, also having migrated from Punjab on account of well known disturbed civic life there. Seva Dass Singh being a polital person also, transfer certificates for his two wards entitling them to admission in higher class were issued, in departure from the policy, because he wanted to go back to Punjab where the situation had improved. ( 7 ) WE have already noticed that the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the petition was of setting aside the detention order and promoting him to prosecute his studies in the next class i. e. XII but in view of the facts set out in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, a case was developed and strongly presed by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing pressing for issuance of a transfer certificate entitling the petitioner to admission in XII class in some other institution of his choice. We gave an option to the respondents counsel to seek instructions from the management of the respondent and issue transfer certificate to the petitioner as prayed for and get rid of the petitioner from the respondent s institution, leaving it open to him to find out any other institution and accomodate therein. However, the respondents counsel was not agreeable. We have, therefore, to determine the entitlement of the petitioner on the hard facts of the case and the law applicable. ( 8 ) THOUGH the petitioner has tried to make out a case of malafides alleging that the principal of the respondent institution has managaed to delebrately detain the petitioner but we do not find the charge of malafides substantiated. ( 8 ) THOUGH the petitioner has tried to make out a case of malafides alleging that the principal of the respondent institution has managaed to delebrately detain the petitioner but we do not find the charge of malafides substantiated. It is difficult to accept that the teachers in the institution would conspire together and fail a student otherwise deserving. ( 9 ) WE find the petitioner himself having stated in para 4 of the legal notice dated 2. 9. 1993, annexure-G that he had remained generally sick during the academic year 1992- 93 and may be that was the cause behind his comparitively poor performance in class XI. Be that whatever it may, it is a highly disputed question of fact to assess the real worth of the performance of the petitioner as a student of classxi. In any case that exercise cannot be performed in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. ( 10 ) WE have grave doubts if the respondents were justified in adopting the policy of issuing transfer certificates or giving promotions to higher class as an exception merely on humanitarian consideration inspite of the performance of the student not justifying promotion to higher class. Such policy has been discontinued. The petitioner has not been able to cite any instance where inspite of having failed, a student might have been promoted to higher class. We can not also approve the action of the respondent institution issuing transfer certificates entitling the students in two exceptional cases to admission in higher calss in other institutions. We are not satisfied that grounds on which respondent institution proceeded to work out exceptions, could have been valid grounds for justifying such exceptional approach. We have, therefore, to see if the petitioner can be assisted by issuing a writ commanding the respondent institution to issue similar transfer certificate to the petitioner. Suffice it to refer to a Division Bench decision of this court in the Chief Commissioner and another Vs. Mrs. Kitty Puri AIR 1973 Delhi-wherein it has been held that a denial of illegal favour cannot amount to discriminatory treatment violative of principle of equality Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 11 ) WE may also refer to a recent decision of Supreme Court in Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise [jt 1994 (1) SC150] wherein their Lordships have raeiterated their own view in Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. ( 11 ) WE may also refer to a recent decision of Supreme Court in Madras Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise [jt 1994 (1) SC150] wherein their Lordships have raeiterated their own view in Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1958 (1) SCR 523] as under- "a wrong decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefit on the basis of the wrong decision. " ( 12 ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner cannot, by citing examples of 2 or 3 students having been shown unjustified favour, claim similar favour being shown to him by reference to Article 14 of the Constitution, more so when we arc called upon to exerscise our discretionary writ jurisdiction. ( 13 ) FOR the forgoing reasons we find the petitioner not entitled to any relief. The petition is dismissed though without any order as to costs.