Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 394 (CAL)

Swapan Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal

2001-07-05

Amitava Lala

body2001
JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.: Both the writ petitions are arising out of common cause of action. Leaving aside the technicalities in merit such cause of action is in relation to admission or non-admission of the external students of Class IV standard of different schools Class V standard of a well-known school of Calcutta named as ‘Path a Bhavan’. It has been described that school has its own heritage and value of education. The sensation as created in respect of the matter in the school, the seriousness of the Counsels and the agony in eyes of litigants present in the Court, support such description. Therefore, Court can take judicial notice of the same. Before going into the cause of action I want to clarify one aspect of the matter. Names of the two eminent personalities of the educational field of the State were taken by the learned Counsels on numerous occasions before the Court. They are Dr. Santosh Bhattacharya and Prof. Sanat Bose. One was erstwhile Vice Chancellor of University of Calcutta and another was retired Professor of Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. They have made their marks in various educational fields. It is not desirable that this Court take note of any personal attack. Value of the chair of the Apex Court of the State does not speak for the same. On the other hand, humbleness gives rise to the dignity of the chair. My endeavour is strictly restricted to the cause of action. 2. In analysing the cause of action I find that the petitioners plea is that either all the external students including 'Path a Bhavan(Montessori and Primary)' will sit for the admission test to get admission in Class V standard of the 'Path a Bhavan(Secondary)' or all of them will be allowed to give admission without any admission test. The logic behind making such submission is that 'Path a Bhavan(Montessori and Primary)' is not the integral part of 'Patha Bhavan(Secondary)'. There cannot be double system of admission of students in Class V standard of the institution i.e., 'Patha Bhavan'. It is a clear case of discrimination. 3. The other plea is that the petitioners were allowed to deposit admission fees for their wards for direct admission much before the direct admission given to the pupil of 'Path a Bhavan (Montessori and Primary)' to 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)'. Therefore, they legitimately expect admission of the wards without admission test. It is a clear case of discrimination. 3. The other plea is that the petitioners were allowed to deposit admission fees for their wards for direct admission much before the direct admission given to the pupil of 'Path a Bhavan (Montessori and Primary)' to 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)'. Therefore, they legitimately expect admission of the wards without admission test. Such deposits cannot be made subject to the admission test. 4. There are three petitioners in the first writ petition being W.P. 7949(W)/2001 wherein there are twenty petitioners in the second writ petition being W.P. 8591(W)/2001. Both the writ petitions are affirmed by one Sri Swap an Kumar Das. Whether it is co-incidence or not is unknown to this Court. 5. Most of the documents are common in both the writ petitions such as letter of the then President of the Managing Committee dated 30-3-2001 to the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the communication of the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education to the then President of the Managing Committee dated 4.4.2001 and a resolution of the Managing Committee dated 17.4.2001. Rest of the document are in relation to notice to call admission test, deposit slips of money and letters of the then Headmaster, of the Institution to deposit admission fees etc. 6. It appears that on 30.3.2001 the then President of the then Managing Committee sought permission from the Board of Secondary Education to start admission test for admission in Class V standard of the Institution in respect of all the candidates including 'Patha Bhavan (Primary)'. According to the then President of the Managing Committee the 'Patha Bhavan(Primary)' is governed by a registered society and it has got nothing common with the 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)' in respect of management, administration, financial or academic. Such letter was answered immediately on 4.4.2001 by the Secretary of the Board by saying that the Primary Section cannot be construed as an integral part of the Secondary Section. The right of admission in a secondary school lies with the Academic Council under the direction of the Managing Committee. For the sake of clarity and uniformity a single system must be followed without discrimination. Hence, the admission of all the students of different schools having different identity will get through admission test which has been upheld by the Board. The right of admission in a secondary school lies with the Academic Council under the direction of the Managing Committee. For the sake of clarity and uniformity a single system must be followed without discrimination. Hence, the admission of all the students of different schools having different identity will get through admission test which has been upheld by the Board. Surprisingly, the learned Counsel appearing for the Board in answering question upon obtaining time for taking instruction categorically said that this is not a resolution of the Board at all. This is a mere communication of the Secretary of the Board. Members of the Board cannot sit on such a short notice and take resolution. It also appears to me even the President was not called upon to utilise the emergency power. Therefore, according to me, the independent opinion of the Secretary of the Board is non est in the law having no face value. 7. The Managing Committee took a resolution in a meeting held on 17.4.2001 under the signature of the then President of the Managing Committee on the basis of such communication of the Secretary of the Board holding that the students from the 'Patha Bhavan(Primary)' were getting admission in the 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)' without admission test and now, the Managing Committee resolves that all admission in Class V of the year 2001-02 will be governed by an admission test held for the purpose. However, because of past practice, students sent by 'Patha Bhavan (Primary)' class may be given some preference for this year only, subject to their appearing and qualifying in the test. But, they will be treated as new admission at per with others. An objection was put forward by the learned Counsel appearing for the present school authority that .the resolution was a minority decision. Such resolution does not indicate any reference of the letter of the Secretary of the Board. Therefore, it appears that the President of the ad-hoc Managing Committee wanted to apply discretion to change the system. Good, bad, indifferent, according to me, change of existing process of admission is a matter of policy decision. Therefore, it is desirable that such policy decision either should be unanimous or by majority with descending reasons of the minority. Therefore, it appears that the President of the ad-hoc Managing Committee wanted to apply discretion to change the system. Good, bad, indifferent, according to me, change of existing process of admission is a matter of policy decision. Therefore, it is desirable that such policy decision either should be unanimous or by majority with descending reasons of the minority. On top of it, one should remember that an ad-hoc committee unless become permanent should not entangle themselves with a policy decision because ad-hoc is an interim arrangement to maintain the status quo. It is to be remembered various comments were made against such ad-hoc committee by saying that the committee is not even an elected committee but a selected committee by the Court and continuing for a considerable period without any election. 8. Therefore, the decision, when announced by circulation reacted very badly in the school also amongst the guardians. At that juncture when a writ petition being numbered W.P. 826 of 2001 (Prabir Bhattacharya & Ors. vs. State of W.B. & Ors.) was moved before a Single Bench of this Court the same was disposed of with the following order : "The life of the ad hoc committee of the school in question was further extended by the authority concerned after it had expired on 8.4.2001. The petitioner made a representation against the same before the authority concerned who has no objection to consider the ,same as submitted by Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate, for the said authority. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the said authority to consider the said representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from date upon an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner". 9. In compliance with such order of the Court the Secretary of the Board again communicated a departmental order of the President of the Board of Secondary Education under Memo. No. S/329 dated 9.5.2001 whereunder an administrator was appointed superseding the existing ad-hoc committee with immediate effect for a period of six months with certain other directions holding election etc. which are not relevant for the purpose. 10. Before that by a Memo. No. S/329 dated 9.5.2001 whereunder an administrator was appointed superseding the existing ad-hoc committee with immediate effect for a period of six months with certain other directions holding election etc. which are not relevant for the purpose. 10. Before that by a Memo. No. S/327/4 dated 5.5.2001 it was communicated by the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education to the Headmaster of the concerned school that in view of the General Assembly Election in the State and in consideration of the prevailing law and order problem in the locality involving admission of students in 'Patha Bhavan' school it is ordered that all admission process of the aforesaid school will remain postponed until the General Assembly Election in the State is completed. After the process of the General Assembly Election was completed the Administrator assumed the charge on 11.5.2001, who, in turn, restored the previous process of admission from 'Patha Bhavan(Primary)' to 'Patha Bhavan(Secondary)'. As a result whereof most of the seats were filled up. But for the filling up the remaining seats from the candidates other than the 'Path a Bhavan (Primary)' a notice was issued calling upon such candidates as external candidates to sit for the admission test. There the present dispute started. According to the petitioner the stand taken by the administrator is utterly discriminatory because 'Patha Bhavan (Primary)', is not at all integral part of the 'Patha Bhavan(Secondary)' and run by a registered society as private institution. Moreover, the Headmaster, during this tenure of erstwhile ad hoc committee allowed direct admission by acceptance of admission fees much prior to the admission of students from 'Path a Bhavan (Primary)' to 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)'. The following interim order was passed by this Court : “Under such circumstances, balance of convenience speaks that the wards of the petitioners herein without prejudice to the rights and contention will sit in the forthcoming examination to be held on 23.6.2001 and their answer scripts will be submitted after scrutiny under a sealed cover by the Institution before this Court. So far as the encashment of cheques paid by the guardians on behalf of the said pupils are concerned, they will also file a short affidavit explaining the position on the next date. This order is made treating as a special case and these three seats shall be kept vacant for the time being. So far as the encashment of cheques paid by the guardians on behalf of the said pupils are concerned, they will also file a short affidavit explaining the position on the next date. This order is made treating as a special case and these three seats shall be kept vacant for the time being. This order is passed strictly without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to final result of the writ petition". 11. It appears from the annexures that in addition to payment of fees for the admission test the Headmaster of the Institution on 3.5.2001 served a notice upon the applicants by saying that number of valid applications received by them for admission in Class V is less than the total number of seats. Therefore, the admission to the wards of the petitioners can be given directly by depositing the A/C payee cheques in favour of 'Path a Bhavan' as stated in the enclosed slip positively by 11.5.2001 either personally at the Bank or by Speed Post to the school. 12. The whole purpose of passing the interim order in this matter was to test the bona fide of the guardians and their wards not only by the school but by the Court itself so that a good qualify student cannot be deprived of the right of admission. But unfortunately none of the wards of the three petitioners in the first writ petition sat for the examination. So far as the second writ petition is concerned, only two wards of the petitioners being the son of one Dr. Sanjit Kumar Das, petitioner No.1 and the other one is son of Sri Samir Kumar Saha, petitioner No. 10 sat for the examination, become successful and got admission. Hence, the following inferences can be drawn. Firstly, the Court never said that they may sit for the examination but the Court said that they will sit for the examination. Therefore, the Court never kept the option open to the petitioners to avoid the admission test at least for the purpose of the first writ petition but when they avoided to do so Court has every right to draw an adverse inference about their quality and keenness. Therefore, whether the process of admission is yet available or not, they can not earn sympathy from the Court. Therefore, whether the process of admission is yet available or not, they can not earn sympathy from the Court. Hence, any application of AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 23 (Saurabh Agarwal vs. Kurukshetra University & Ors.) is not available in the present circumstances irrespective of other requirements of the matter. So far as the second writ petition is concerned, although it is contended by the petitioners that exactly same order for the purpose of sitting for admission test has been passed but the import of order is very clear to say that the Court did not want to differ with the order already passed specially in respect of an admission test which was fixed on 23.6.2001, therefore, there was no bar in sitting in forthcoming admission test. Secondly, if some of them chose to sit for the examination and got successful even without prejudice and acted upon not only on the basis of the interm order passed by this Court but also as per the notice of the institution the pendency of such writ petition rendered infructuous by their acceptance. Merits of the students cannot be judged by the Court even to test the bona fide since they did not choose to sit for the examination. Further a natural question comes to the mind of the Court whether the petitioners are coming with clean hands or not. If it is not then the equity cannot favour them. 13. Therefore, allowing admission of inelligible candidates will be misplaced sympathy. See 1993(4) SCC 401 (Guru Nanak Deu University vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal & Ors.). From the affidavit of the administrator it appears that cheques which were sought to be forwarded for direct admission were not encashed. The petitioners contended that legitimate expectation applies even when the payment is not encashed by applying the test of 1999(1) CLJ 438 (Prasar Bharati Boardcasting Corpn. of India vs. Debajyoti Bose & other matters). I am hesitant in accepting such proposition in this case because there is a marked distinction between the admission in an educational institution and establish a privity of contract in between two contracting parties. In an educational institution quality of the ward, is prime consideration and definitely prevailing over the monetary considerations like two contracting parties in common perlance. 14. I am hesitant in accepting such proposition in this case because there is a marked distinction between the admission in an educational institution and establish a privity of contract in between two contracting parties. In an educational institution quality of the ward, is prime consideration and definitely prevailing over the monetary considerations like two contracting parties in common perlance. 14. The contentions of the respondents, be it the school authority or be it the governmental authorities are uniform leaving aside the President of erstwhile ad-hoc committee although locus standi is doubtful. According to them, the second writ petition is not maintainable at all because by such writ petition the petitioners therein, in effect, wanted to recall the interim order passed by this court in the first writ petition. The existence of most of the petitioners either in the first writ petition or in the second writ petition are fictitious. They are stalled by any or many vested interested persons. The writ petitions are, in effect, made on behalf of various unconnected persons, but by a single affidavit of one petitioner. Therefore, apart from the questions or merit even for these technicalities such writ petitions cannot be held to be maintainable. 15. According to me, although some of the technical points can not be thrown out in limine but for the sake of substantial justice it has been given a go-bye. 16. But before going into merit, one particular technical point cannot be avoided from giving clarification i.e. applicability of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure herein. Admittedly, no leave has been obtained by the petitioners in either of the writ petitions specially in the second writ petition which has been made by twenty writ petitioners totally disconnected from each other but for the self same cause under the affidavit of only one writ petitioner. Learned Counsel, appearing in support of the petitioners contended in support of the penultimate paragraph of a reported judgement in the case of Brahmo Balika Shikshalaya & Anr. vs. Debasish Kar Gupta & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 Cal 155 , that for the purpose of moving writ petition by the guardians on behalf of the wards no leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be obtained. vs. Debasish Kar Gupta & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 Cal 155 , that for the purpose of moving writ petition by the guardians on behalf of the wards no leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be obtained. According to me, Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable when one person is suing or defending for same interest but for the same such person requires a permission or direction to make a public advertisement of inviting parties interested in the manner as prescribed thereunder so that they can join their hands in respect of dispute made for the common cause, can be heard and disposed of at a time. The Rule is made to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings when the cause of action is same or similar to all such persons. Therefore, the element of common cause is parameter of the consideration. At the time of final hearing I find that applicability of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code, in effect, has been given effect by wide circulation which this Court cannot avoid from taking judicial notice. Therefore, the purpose of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code has been fulfilled. 17. Be that as it may, sometimes some rules are applicable either in person or in rem irrespective of the number of petitioners before or after obtaining leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the writ jurisdiction of the Court which normally deals with various rights of the citizens as per the governmental order or orders. It automatically affects not one but many others as in the writ petitions herein. Therefore, the applicability of such rule may not be strictly applicable to the guardians of the school going children on various reasons such as underage etc. Moreover, it is restricted to ventilate the grievance of a guardian on behalf of the ward but cannot be construed as a general principle applicable everywhere. In any event, in the instant case when the petitioner's contention is that the observation of the Division Bench is applicable herein then upon such acceptance I have to hold that the instant judgement is applicable in rem towards all the students of the institution whether they have invoked the writ jurisdiction or not. 18. In any event, in the instant case when the petitioner's contention is that the observation of the Division Bench is applicable herein then upon such acceptance I have to hold that the instant judgement is applicable in rem towards all the students of the institution whether they have invoked the writ jurisdiction or not. 18. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, according to me, there are two stand points available to take into account. Either Court will proceed on the basis of the factum of the case before passing of the order by the Single Bench of this Court on 27.4.2001 or Court will proceed with the situation after the order is passed. The second one is far more acceptable by this Court in the given situation. However, the Court will take into account all the factum either before or after the order being passed for the ends of justice. The petitioners stated that the erstwhile President of the Board has proceeded on the basis of a decision" of the Board of Secondary Education but not out of his own. Therefore, their action is not unilateral action. I am sorry to say that the learned Counsel appearing for the Board himself submitted before this Court that the resolution as treated to be taken by the Board and communicated on 4.4.2001 is not at all Board's decision but a mere explanatory communication of the Secretary which is not sustainable in law. If the Board itself make such submission in respect of their own action, the petitioners or the erstwhile Managing Committee or the President thereof cannot have any leg to stand. 19. So far as the second point is concerned, all affairs prior to the order passed by a Single Bench of this Court on 27.4.2001 is merged with such order. Therefore, this Court sitting in a co-ordinate jurisdiction cannot go beyond the period subsisting prior to 27.4.2001. Many arguments are made that the order is not based as to whether there should be direct admission from 'Path a Bhavan (Montessori & Primary)' to 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)' or routed through the admission test similarly with the external candidates. Therefore, this Court sitting in a co-ordinate jurisdiction cannot go beyond the period subsisting prior to 27.4.2001. Many arguments are made that the order is not based as to whether there should be direct admission from 'Path a Bhavan (Montessori & Primary)' to 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)' or routed through the admission test similarly with the external candidates. But according to me, definitely such situation merged with others arose which led the Court to direct to consider the appointment of Administrator by the Board and Board resolved by appointing an Administrator who, in turn, has taken a decision to revert to the original position. Such decision of the Administrator on behalf of the educational institution cannot be interfered with by the Court. High Court cannot grant order of admission nor interfere with the reservation in order of priority; AIR 1992 SC 435 (Chandigarh Administration & Anr. vs. Manpreet Singh & Ors.). Moreover process of selection for recruitment against existing anticipated vacancies does not create a right to appointment; 1994 (2) SCC 630 (J & K Public Service Commission & Ors. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors.). Whether there would be any admission test or no admission test is a discretion of an educational institution to which the petitioners are rank outsiders. It is not a matter of the guardians whose wards are already part and parcel of it so that the legitimate expectation, if any, may give rise to their demand. Under normal circumstances, legitimate expectation can be used as a shield but not as a sword. It is not the enforceable right but a test of action of governmental authority whether arbitrary or not; 2001(2) SCC 326 (State of W.B. vs. Niranjan Sinha). However, the legitimate expectation, if applied for even as a sword has to have a strong foundation of the case because such right is still at the stage of evocation. In the instant case, legitimate expectation of the petitioners is based on a particular point whether 'Patha Bhavan (Montessori and Primary)' and 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)' are integral parts of each other or not. According to me, whether primary section is integral part of the secondary section of such institution cannot be dependable upon two Managing Committees or present separate address of the Registered Society alone. In the instant case it is nobody's case that it was not integral part of one institution at least by necessary action. According to me, whether primary section is integral part of the secondary section of such institution cannot be dependable upon two Managing Committees or present separate address of the Registered Society alone. In the instant case it is nobody's case that it was not integral part of one institution at least by necessary action. But the dispute is that it would not be the integral part in future and that too at the instance of the persons who have not yet accrued any right and on behalf of the President of the ad-hoc committee. Therefore, as and when the Board by appointment of Administrator reverted back the original position, there is no question of availability of dispute to be interfered with by the Court of Law. 20. Whether the management, administration, financial and academic of both the institutions governed is under one umbrella or not it is depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. It appears that by a Memorandum of Association a society was formed by the name of 'PATHA BHAVAN' as on 27.4.1965. The Registration of Society was made on 28.4.1965. Registered office of such society was at the same place i.e. 103A and C, Ballygunge Place, Calcutta - 700 017 subsequently shifted elsewhere. Therefore, it is not out of place to mention that ratio of judgement reported in 2001(1) SCC 1 (Noor Niwas Nursery Public School vs. Regional Put. Fund Commissioner & Ors.) can be applicable herein. Many eminent personalities of Calcutta in the field of education, cinematography, law and others were part and parcel of it. From the submission, it appears that from the inception 'Patha Bhavan', Montessori, Primary and Secondary were running at different places but controlled by such personalities who formed the society. In 1975 a concerted effort was made for the purpose of obtaining a land nearby so that all the branches can be taken together under the same roof which has taken the shape of finality by acquisition of land by the Government and handing over the same to the institution very recently. As and when such final shape is started to be given an internal politics brought everything to the public notice and ultimately resulted to Court litigations. I find from the correspondence placed before this Court that at all material times steps were taken not only for the purpose of secondary section but also primary, secondary and intermediate sections. As and when such final shape is started to be given an internal politics brought everything to the public notice and ultimately resulted to Court litigations. I find from the correspondence placed before this Court that at all material times steps were taken not only for the purpose of secondary section but also primary, secondary and intermediate sections. Apart from all the correspondences it is notified in the Calcutta Gazettee dated 8.5.1975 that the land was needed for the public purpose namely for the construction of the buildings for primary, secondary and intermediate sections and for providing space for recreation, physical training and work education for the students of PATHA BHA VAN - a school for boys and girls. Therefore, the link between two schools cannot be ruled out. 21. It is further significant to note that the erstwhile President of the Managing Committee was the party to the resolution taken by the Managing Committee of Montessori and Primary Department of 'Patha Bhavan' in respect of the admission in Montessori stage and Primary stage. Even the disputed resolution dated 7.4.2001 relied upon by the petitioners and attested by the then President of the ad-hoc committee speaks for the admission test in future but with preference to the students of primary unit. Therefore, my considered view is that both the sections were integral parts of one institution which were tried to be separated and did not become effective due to appointment of Administrator and his immediate action. 22. This Court was pleased to consider similar matter and delivered a judgement which has not been reported as yet. Such unreported judgement is dated 5.4.2001 in W.P. No. 600 of 2000 (Sadhan Roy & Ors. vs. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors.). It was also a matter of a well known school i.e. Kalyani University Experimental High School. In the similar circumstances it was urged that Kalyani University Experimental School (Secondary) are different institutions, therefore, admission test has to be given for admission in the first standard of the Secondary Section from the last standard of the Primary Section. Those are governed by different Boards. Therefore, both the institutions cannot be said to be integral part of one institution. At best a preference can be given. Those are governed by different Boards. Therefore, both the institutions cannot be said to be integral part of one institution. At best a preference can be given. However, this Court was pleased to hold that both are integral part of one institution and the same was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The principles laid down in AIR 1996 SC 118 (The Principal, Cambridge School & Anr. vs. Miss Payal Gupta & Ors.) was considered by this Court therein. The ratio of such judgement is once a student is admitted to a school the same admission continues class after class until he passes the last examination which the school gives therein and no fresh admission or re-admission is contemplated from one class to another unless he/she passes the last terminal examination from the school in Class XII. The ratio of the Calcutta judgement reported in AIR 2000 Cal 155 (supra) was also considered by this Court. Both the judgements favourably supported the Court in coming to conclusion. The guiding factor is whether it can be visualised that management, administration, financial or academic part of both the institutions are common in nature being the integral part of each other or not. In other words, whether both are under one umbrella or not. Such judgements were confronted with a Single Bench judgement of this Court dated 16.3.2001 in W.P. No. 910 (W) of 2001 (Somenath Paul & Ors. vs. The State of W.B. & Ors.) by the petitioners. Under such judgement a Single Bench of this Court held that both the primary and secondary sections of the institution known as Jadavpur Vidyapith are different from each other due to control by different Managing Committees, therefore, admission test is required to be given by the students for admission from Class IV of the Primary section to Class V of the Secondary section. 23. I have carefully gone through the judgement but I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the proposition in that case for the following reasons: (a) The judgements and orders of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court have binding effect upon this Court. Similarly, judgement and order passed by this Court itself previously and tested by the Division Bench also have binding effect upon this Court irrespective of persuasive value of judgement of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Similarly, judgement and order passed by this Court itself previously and tested by the Division Bench also have binding effect upon this Court irrespective of persuasive value of judgement of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Thus, the interpretation of students says that the scope of reference, it any, to any Larger Bench in the circumstances is limited. (b) Moreover, the factual matrix herein is different from such judgement. In that admission test from Class IV of Primary Section to Class V of the Secondary Section is existing from 1987. Even the Court supported the view in 1994 when it was called upon by some guardians. Therefore, distinctness of two sections of the institution is an accepted position. On the other hand, distinctness of this school has been opposed by almost all and no such admission test wanted to be introduced as yet accepted. (c) Each case is dependent upon its own facts and circumstances and since both the circumstances are different from each other legal application cannot be the same or similar. 24. According to me, the entry point is the standard of Montessori or Primary and the another point is Secondary or Higher Secondary when there is no terminability from Class IV to Class V in the integral part of one institution. The 'Path a Bhavan (Montessori and Primary)' and the 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)' are integral part of one educational institution. Therefore, coming in and going out is like a pipeline. There is no question of obtaining admission test for admission from Class IV to Class V standard of the institution. 25. Other feature is whether there is any question of discrimination or not. As I have already ruled out the plea that 'Patha Bhavan (Montessori and Primary)' and 'Patha Bhavan (Secondary)' are not different from each other, there cannot have any question of discrimination. The terminal entry point of the students from the Primary to Secondary standard of the institution is different from external students on whose account admission in Class V of the institution is terminal examination. Since such students are external students in all respect, the wards of the petitioners cannot be similarly placed with the students of the school 'Path a Bhavan (Primaty)'. Therefore, there is no question of discrimination in giving a notice to them to sit for the admission test. 26. The next point is that whether such admission test is required or not. Therefore, there is no question of discrimination in giving a notice to them to sit for the admission test. 26. The next point is that whether such admission test is required or not. Such admission test is required because each and every institution has its own standard to judge a student for admission. The students other than the externals have already been judged by another section of the institution for a considerable period. Therefore, they can take them on their own risk and responsibility which they cannot do in respect of outsiders without any test. Therefore, when the test being discretion of the school in respect of outsider cannot be ruled out in the way as prayed for. I repeat any say that the High Court neither grants admission nor interferes with the reservation in order of priority. 27. The last but not the least is a question whether taking admission fees before admission test creates any legitimate expectation or not. According to me, taking of the admission fees without any admission test as per the letter of the Headmaster is no more prevailing after the order being passed by this Court in respect of earlier writ petition beyond which this Court cannot go. Therefore, it is also discretion of the present Managing Committee of the school whether they will be given direct admission on the basis of deposit of admission fees or they will be directed to sit for the examination. Mere acceptance of money without any test cannot create any lien in their favour in the present circumstances. It is a matter of policy of the administration of the institution which cannot be interfered with by the Court. It is also to be remembered that change of policies destroys the legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel earlier available except presence of mala fides or abuse of power. When the change of policy decision was not irrational or perverse one is not bound by the earlier policy. See 1996 (5) SCC 268 (PTR Exports (Madras) Put. Ltd. & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.) and AIR 1999 SC 1801 : 1999 (4) SCC 727 (Punjab Communications Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.). When the change of policy decision was not irrational or perverse one is not bound by the earlier policy. See 1996 (5) SCC 268 (PTR Exports (Madras) Put. Ltd. & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.) and AIR 1999 SC 1801 : 1999 (4) SCC 727 (Punjab Communications Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.). If I judge the present position I shall be able to find that here the Administrator neither acted mala fide nor abused the power nor behaved irrationally or in perverse manner because he restored the original position of admission existing from the very inception of the institution. On the contrary, the earlier change of existing policy without the legal foundation and consonsus by the ad-hoc committee appears to be an abuse of power. Therefore, any existence of such action cannot be held to be legitimate at all and to be regularised by deposit of any sum in connection thereto. The very existence of such dispute held to be nugatory and non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, the notice of deposit of money has also got no face value whatsoever irrespective of further fact of non-encashment of such amount deposited by cheque/s. 28. Under such circumstances, and taking into totality of facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the writ petitions are libale to be dismissed and hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, no order is passed as to costs. This order will govern both the writ petitions. 29. Let an urgent xeroxed certified copy of this judgement if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties within two weeks from the date of putting the requisites. Writ petitions dismissed.