( 1 ) IA-III is allowed. Amendment is permitted. ( 2 ) CHILDREN of about 11 to 12 years of age are before me through their natural guardians in these petitions seeking for a writ or order declaring Art. 106 of the Education Code (2004 Edition) as null and void and ultra vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to promote the students of Classes V to VII as per the old Rules. They want a consequential direction to the respondents to adhere to the earlier Rules regarding promotion in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Their further prayer is for a direction directing the respondent to promote the petitioners to the next higher class as they have scored more than 33% marks in individual subjects. An alternative prayer is also made by the petitioners. ( 3 ) ALL these petitioners are the students of Kendriya Vidyalaya. They have secured certain marks and they have been detained in the same class in terms of the results announced by the school in question. They say that there are 950 Kendriya Vidyalayas and they have referred to the education facilities provided by these Vidyalayas. They impart education by providing teaching learning experience to the students and conduct examination through various classes from I to IX and XI. The examinations are conducted as per syllabus and textbooks prescribed. Promotion to the next higher class is carried out based on the performance throughout the year. The children are assessed throughout the assessment year from April to March. The petitioners are detained in the same classes. It is stated that from classes 1 to 5 it is 100% promotion. If a child has secured grade of not less than 'e' in a five point scale and has put in 75% attendance during the relevant year, Art. 106 provides for examination promotion of a child in the matter. Marks are provided under Art. 106. As far as Classes VI to IX and XI are concerned, it is stated that each student would need to pass continuous and comprehensive evaluations as well, session ending examinations separately. Marks are provided under Art. 106. As far as Classes VI to IX and XI are concerned, it is stated that each student would need to pass continuous and comprehensive evaluations as well, session ending examinations separately. Classes IX and XI, if a candidate secures less than 33% in one or two subjects in the session ending examination and will be promoted to a higher class on getting 33% in the supplementary examination but that facility according to the petitioners is denied in terms of Annexure 'c'. Prior to introduction of the above schemes, according to the petitioners for securing a pass to the next class was that in classes V to VIII to pass the examination the candidate was to obtain not less than 35% marks in each of the academic subject. In classes IX and XI, a pupil should obtain not less than 35% in each scholastic subject and aggregate of 40% for promotion as per old policy. A student securing 40% aggregate and getting not less than 30% in one or two subjects was eligible for a re-examination and could be promoted to higher class, if one gets 35% or more in the subject (s) of re-examination. ( 4 ) THE petitioners in these cases are challenging Article 116 (B) (ii) and (iii) in the case on hand. According to them, they are entitled for consideration on par with the higher students and in the alternative, they are entitled for supplementary examination in the matter. They say 33% as fixed for higher classes is to be made applicable to them. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. They say in the objection that Kendriya vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) is an autonomous body registered under Societies registration Act of I860 and fully financed by the Govt. of India with the main object to cater to the educational needs of the children of Central Govt. Employees including children of Defence Personnel by providing a common programme and standard of education all over the country. KVS was established in 1963 by taking over the students and staff of 20 regimental schools spread all over India was conducting its own selection process for teachers. The KVS, Bangalore Region is one of the chain of Institutions in the country and is providing excellent education to produce responsible and educated citizens. KVS was established in 1963 by taking over the students and staff of 20 regimental schools spread all over India was conducting its own selection process for teachers. The KVS, Bangalore Region is one of the chain of Institutions in the country and is providing excellent education to produce responsible and educated citizens. ( 6 ) THE respondents submit that presently, they have nearly 900 KVS throughout the country and abroad, which are distributed under 18 regions headed by the assistant Commissioner as Regional head. The respondents submit that Rules of Examination and Promotion are governed as per Articles 105 and 106 of the Education code. As per the Rules, there are two types of Evaluation in an academic year viz. , (1) continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation or (CCE) and (2) Session Ending Examination or SEE for considering the suitability of a student for promotion to the higher class. As evident, CCE is a continuous and comprehensive examination with a weightage of 60 marks included 3 unit tests, class work, Home assignment, Projects/practicals, etc. , evaluated on term basis and one cumulative test conducted for up to the portions taught in each subject by 10th november for which split up portions are spelt out at the beginning of the year. ( 7 ) THE respondents submit that the examination in the end of the Session or SEE is having a weightage of 40 marks only; cover the total prescribed syllabus of NCERT. So the student gets whole year for evaluation of his performance as per the National Policy of Education or NPE 1986 and at the same time evaluation of his performance is continued throughout the academic year. The provision for awarding grace marks is also there as per Article 106-E which is printed incorrectly in the Education Code. Accordingly a corrigendum was issued vide Circular No. F. 31-6/2004-KVS (Acad) dated 13-4-2004. This was reiterated vide item No. 8 of Circular No. F. 34ac/2003-04/kvs (BGR) dated 19th February 2004 of KVS, RO, Bangalore. ( 8 ) THEY justify their action. ( 9 ) MATTER is heard for final disposal. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners is at great pains to point out that a case of discrimination is provided in the case on hand. According to him, Article 106 provides for promotion rules. ( 8 ) THEY justify their action. ( 9 ) MATTER is heard for final disposal. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners is at great pains to point out that a case of discrimination is provided in the case on hand. According to him, Article 106 provides for promotion rules. It provides for both primary classes as well as for classes VII to IX and XI. He further says that Article 106 clause (d) provides for supplementary examination in the event of a student getting less than 33% in so far as classes IX and XI are concerned. Learned Counsel says that this facility is not available to students who are up to classes I to VIII. According to him, this amounts to discrimination in the matter. Learned Counsel says that this Court has to take note of discrimination and come to the rescue of the petitioners. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has placed before me two Judgments in support of his submissions. ( 12 ) AFTER hearing the following order is passed: admittedly, the petitioners are the young children of the age group of 11 and 12 years. According to the petition averments, prior to introduction of the above schemes of examination and marks fixed for securing a pass to the next higher class was that, in classes V to VIII to pass the examination the candidate was to obtain not less than 35% marks in each of the academic subject. In classes IX and XI a pupil should obtain not less than 35 in each scholastic subject and aggregate of 40% for promotion as per old policy. According to the petition averments, supplementary examination is possible in case of students in classes IX and XI securing less than 33% in one or two subjects in the session ending examination. The petitioners want a supplementary examination and 33% in the case on hand. It is seen that in terms of the earlier Education Code, pass percentage was not less than 33% marks in each of the subjects and 33% in aggregate. 120 of the earlier Clause provides promotion, provided a student has secured at least 25% marks in each of the subject in which he has failed and maintained the aggregate of 40%. Now it has been increased to 33%. This is challenged as arbitrary by the petitioner. 120 of the earlier Clause provides promotion, provided a student has secured at least 25% marks in each of the subject in which he has failed and maintained the aggregate of 40%. Now it has been increased to 33%. This is challenged as arbitrary by the petitioner. This Court has to notice that fixation of marks and the method and manner of fixation of procedure for examination is essentially a function of the academicians, educationists etc. , Unless it is pointed out to the Court that such percentage or such procedure is in violation of any Rule or law governing the subject, this court normally shall not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What has been done now is that the authority in its wisdom has chosen to increase the percentage to 33% in each of the academic subject in terms of Article 106 of the Code. This cannot be termed as arbitrary or excessive as sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is fairly well settled that a minimum of 35% is always held to be a minimum marks for pass in examination. The authorities in their wisdom have chosen to increase from 25% to 33%. That cannot be termed as arbitrary or unsustainable in the case on hand. As I mentioned earlier, I would say that these matters are to be left to the realm of educationists and Courts are not to interfere in such matters unless, a very strong case of violation of any acceptable legal principles is made out in a given circumstances. No such circumstance is made in the case on hand. The argument of the petitioner does not appeal to me. ( 13 ) IN so far as the prayer of supplementary examination is concerned, I am afraid that this prayer also cannot be granted. This Court cannot forget that the petitioners are young children of ages 11 and 12. I do not think that the concept of supplementary examination and 'a dorices- sion is to be put into the tender mind of, young children. That would result in downgrading the aspiration of a young mind. A young mind has to be provided with zeal and enthusiasm with sufficient inputs to encourage, increase in efficiency and intelligence. I do not think that the concept of supplementary examination and 'a dorices- sion is to be put into the tender mind of, young children. That would result in downgrading the aspiration of a young mind. A young mind has to be provided with zeal and enthusiasm with sufficient inputs to encourage, increase in efficiency and intelligence. The concept of supplementary examination and a lesser percentage at that tender age would not be in the intefest 6f that age group. Probably with a view to improve the standards and with a view to improve efficiency, the authorities in their wisdom must have chosen to provide a yardstick in terms of Article 116 of the Code. This Court is not inclined to interfere in such matters and leave these matters to the authorities to maintain pure and efficient educational system. This prayer also cannot be granted. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has placed before me a few Judgments. It is unnecessary to refer to all the Judgments. I would be only referring to a leading Judgment of the Supreme Court in (1991) 3 SCC 91 : ( AIR 1991 SC 1153 ) (G. B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council. The Apex Court in that Judgment has categorically ruled that judicial review is not possible in policy matters. This being the policy decision of the respondents, I do not think that I should interfere and grant relief to these young children. ( 15 ) BEFORE concluding, I cannot but observe that these young students are not to be shown the doors of the Court at this tender age and instead they should be told to improve their efficiency and intelligence in their own interest and in the interest of better education in the country. ( 16 ) PETITIONS are devoid of merits. Rejected. No costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .