V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed assailing the judgment dated 20. 9. 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ petition No. 19621 of 2001. By referring to the parties as per their status in the writ petition, we may briefly state the facts as follows. ( 2 ) THREE minor children, who are either son or daughters of the petitioners, studied Class V in Viswabharathi Residental school, Gadwal. They applied for admission to Class VI in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, vattam, Mahaboobnagar District, the respondent herein. An entrance test was conducted and they obtained top ranks within the first five ranks. At the time of admission the children were to submit documents for verification. After verifying the documents, the respondent by order dated 2. 8. 2001 cancelled the admission mentioning that the school, where the pupils studied upto Class v, is not a recognised one. The peititoners preferred appeals to the Regional Joint director of School Education against the cancellation orders. The said official by proceedings dated 13. 9. 2001 directed the district Educational Official (DEO), mahaboobnagar, to issue necessary orders for admitting Anusha, Swetha and Goutham kishore in the Jawahar Navodaya Vidayaia school "as the said children have already been selected". Thereupon, the DEO issued consequential proceedings dated 14. 9. 2001 informing that the extension of temporary recognition to Class V to Class VII of viswabharathi Residential School is under consideration and requested the respondent to admit those students under Urban category. Inspite of this, the respondent did not admit the children in VI Class for the academic year 2001-2002. Hence, they approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Inspite of this, the respondent did not admit the children in VI Class for the academic year 2001-2002. Hence, they approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage inter alia on the ground that the Regional joint Director and the DEO have no authority to issue directions to the respondent-school and that by the date of proceedings by the DEO, there was no recognition for Viswabharathi Residential School, gadwal, where the children studied upto class V. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the children obtained very high rank and were placed among the top five from the students who appeared in the entrance test and therefore the respondent could not have cancelled the admision only on the ground that the school, where the petitioners children studied, had no recognition. Such action, according to the learned Counsel, would violate the fundamental right of the children under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of india as right to education upto primary level is a fundamental right. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in Unnikrishnan v. Slate of A. P. , air 1993 SC 2178 = (1993) 1 SCC 645 . He also would submit that the DEO, regional Director and other officials are entrusted with implementing and enforcing a. P. Eduction act, 1982 and therefore any school and any eductional institution covered by the said Act is subject to regulation and control by those officers. When such officers informed that the application for extension of temporary recognition is pending, the respondent ought to have admitted the students. He also submitted that the school was given temporary recognition and extension application was pending before the authorities. In any event, he submits that the DEO, Mahaboobnagar by proceedings rc. No. C2/16564/2k dated 25. 9. 2001 accorded permission/ provisional recognition for the years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 and therefore there cannot be only impediment for admiting the students. He would submit that when right to primary education is a fundamental right admitting less meritorious candidates ignoring more meritorious candidates is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. No. C2/16564/2k dated 25. 9. 2001 accorded permission/ provisional recognition for the years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 and therefore there cannot be only impediment for admiting the students. He would submit that when right to primary education is a fundamental right admitting less meritorious candidates ignoring more meritorious candidates is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent could have legitimately denied admission to the children of the petitioners for admission in Class VI in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, vattam, Mahaboobnagar District, ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has filed before us the prospectus for Jawahar Navodaya Vidalaya Selection test for the accdemic year 2002-2003. The same would disclose that in accordance with the National Policy on Education, 1986, the Government of India started Jawahar navodaya Vidyalayas fjnvs) in 27 States and 6 Union Territories. Admissions in jnvs are made through Jawahar Navodaya vidyalaya Selection Test (JNVST) at class VI. The objectives of JNVs Scheme are to promote national integration among students through a policy of migration to encourage and promote talent predominantly from rural areas and weaker sections, to provide quality modern eduction for all round development of talented children and to establish pace setter institutions to be models in the districts and to be resource centers for promotion of excellence. As per the prospectus, children studying in Class V in recognised schools are alone eligible to apply for JNVST. The applications for admission are to be obtained from DEO, block Development Officer, and Headmaster of any recognised school of the district having Class V and/or Principal of JNV. The admit cards for the entrance test are to be issued through those officers only. Therefore, it cannot be said that the DEO has no role in the admission process. Be that as it may, the object of JNV scheme is to promote talent and to provide quality in modern education. An elaborate procedure is envisaged in the scheme to pick up best talent and therefore an entrance test is conducted in Mental Ability, Arithmetic Test and Language Tests. When the object of the scheme is to pick up the best talents, can it be said that ignoring the highly meritorious candidates would be in accordance with the scheme? An elaborate procedure is envisaged in the scheme to pick up best talent and therefore an entrance test is conducted in Mental Ability, Arithmetic Test and Language Tests. When the object of the scheme is to pick up the best talents, can it be said that ignoring the highly meritorious candidates would be in accordance with the scheme? In our considered opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether or not the children of the petitoners studied in recognised schools, their claim for admission could not have been rejected, especially when right to education upto 14 years is a fundamental right under the Constitution of india. ( 7 ) THE proceedings dated 25. 9. 2001 issued by the DEO, Mahboobnagar has been placed before us. The same would disclose that Viswabharathi Residential school, Gadwal, was accorded permission/ temporary recognition for Class I to VII upto 1998-1999. Therefore, even when the children applied for JNVST the school, where they studied, had recognition and in our considered opinion the permission/temprory recognition is recognition for the purpose of the Education Act. Mere pendency of the application for extention of recognition cannot be a ground for denying admission to pupils. Therefore, we are not able to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the school had no recognition and therefore the principal was justified in cancelling the admission. In this view of the matter, we are also not able to agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge. ( 8 ) WHILE admitting the writ appeal on 1. 10. 2001 we directed the respondent to admit the children if they are otherwise entitled. It is now brought to our notice that pursuant to such direction children of petitioners have been admitted in Class VI and are prosecuting studies. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the Principal is not competent to increase the strength of the students and the students are admitted only in obedience to the orders of mis Court. Having regard to the admitted facts, that the children in question are more meritorious and less meritorious candidates were admitted to class VI in preference to the children of the petitioners, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that supernumerary seats can be created only by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Having regard to the admitted facts, that the children in question are more meritorious and less meritorious candidates were admitted to class VI in preference to the children of the petitioners, we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that supernumerary seats can be created only by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of Human Resource Development. It is for the Principal and other authorities to take appropriate action either to cancel the admission of those students who could not have been admitted to Class VI in the JNV, but for the denial of the seats to the children of the petitioners or to continue those students. As we have already held that the children of the petitioners ought to have been admitted based on their rank and any denial would impinge their fundamental right to education. ( 9 ) IN the result, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and allow the writ appeal with costs.