Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, learned senior counsel for contesting respondent no. 4. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4707 of 2007.* 3. The learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ application with direction to the concerned respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion to Class XII in light of instruction no. 5 of the Academic Performance sheet on the basis of his past performance and attendance in the school. 4. The short facts giving rise to this writ application are as under: The writ petitioner, who was student of Class XI of DAV Public School, P.S. BSEB Colony, New Punaichak, Patna, failed to appear in the final examination of Class XI to be held by the school in question commencing from 9th of March, 2007 on account of his illness. In token of the same, the parent/guardian of the writ petitioner made an application on the same date addressed to the Principal of the school in question informing him that the writ petitioner was not in.a position to take up his examination. For non-appearance of the writ petitioner, however, he was not promoted to Class XII for academic session 2007-2008 and consequently thereof, this writ application was filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to promote him to Class XII for the academic session 2007-2008, so that he could appear at the CBSE Board Examination of the year 2008. 5. The writ application on contest was disposed of, as indicated above. 6. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, firstly submitted that the writ application was not maintainable against the school in question, as it was not controlled by the State, and, therefore, it was not an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. Mr. Singh, learned counsel, secondly submitted that since the writ petitioner had not appeared in the ensuing annual examination for Class XI to be held from 9th of March, 2007, no direction could have been issued by this Court to promote him to higher classes in view of his past performance and instruction no. 5 of the Academic Performance Sheet. Mr. Singh, learned counsel, secondly submitted that since the writ petitioner had not appeared in the ensuing annual examination for Class XI to be held from 9th of March, 2007, no direction could have been issued by this Court to promote him to higher classes in view of his past performance and instruction no. 5 of the Academic Performance Sheet. Learned counsel further contended that no request, whatsoever, was made on behalf of the petitioner to allow him to appear even in subsequent papers and only information was given to the Principal of the school in question that the writ petitioner was suffering from high fever. Learned counsel in the background of the submission contended that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court would not be- sustainable in law, as it will create a bad precedent for the school to allow all such students to be promoted in higher Classes even without their appearance/performance in the annual examination. 7. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent no. 4 herein), however, submitted that the writ application was maintainable as the school in question is being managed by the Bihar State Electricity Board and the petitioner since was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing in the examination he could have been promoted to higher Class on the basis of his past performance and attendances in the school in question. Mr. Kanth, learned counsel, further submitted that the writ petitioner was suffering from high fever and on that account, he was not in a position to appear in the annual examination of Class XI to be held from 9th March, 2007 and in this regard, an application was filed in the school in question. He further submitted that this fact would be manifest from the medical certificate, as contained in annexure 3 to the writ application, wherefrom it would appear that the writ petitioner since was suffering from Mumps with Orchitis leading to painful movement and painful jaw movement and was running high fever upto 102 degree, he was advised rest with due medication. He also submitted that in view of the circumstances aforesaid, the learned single Judge of this Court directed to promote the writ petitioner to higher Class on the basis of his past performance and attendance and necessary instruction was issued by the school in question, as referred in above. He also submitted that in view of the circumstances aforesaid, the learned single Judge of this Court directed to promote the writ petitioner to higher Class on the basis of his past performance and attendance and necessary instruction was issued by the school in question, as referred in above. In addition to this, learned counsel further submitted that since it was a question of career of the student and in view of the reasons shown for his non-appearance in the annual examination, the impugned judgment would be sustainable in law. 8. The learned single Judge of this Court maintained the writ application holding that since the school in question was discharging public duties, its administrative action can always be looked into by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in light of the judgment rendered in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1607 (Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswasmi Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others vs. V.R. Rudani and Others). The learned single Judge of this Court further held that the writ petitioner since was prevented by sufficient cause for the reasons, as referred to above, he was entitled to be promoted to higher Class in view of his past performance and attendance in the school coupled with instruction no. 5 of the Academic Performance Sheet. 9. From the materials on record, this is admitted position that the writ petitioner had not appeared in the annual examination for Class XI to be held from 9th March, 2007. This is also admitted fact that on the day of commencement of the examination i.e. 9th March, 2007, the parent/guardian of the writ petitioner gave information in writing to the Principal of the school in question about illness of the writ petitioner. 10. Now question arises as to whether the writ petitioner in such a circumstance, who was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing in the examination, can be promoted to higher Class in view of his past performance and attendance and in light of instruction no. 5 of the Academic Performance Sheet. 11. It is true that in ordinary course a student should not be allowed promotion to higher Class without his appearance in all papers unless the school administration is satisfied that he was prevented by sufficient cause and only on such exceptional ground, exemption may be granted. 5 of the Academic Performance Sheet. 11. It is true that in ordinary course a student should not be allowed promotion to higher Class without his appearance in all papers unless the school administration is satisfied that he was prevented by sufficient cause and only on such exceptional ground, exemption may be granted. But, in any view of the matter, it would not be made a rule of law, as it would tell upon the academic discipline of the school in question and the action, accordingly, would be discriminatory. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the medical report and the information given by the parent/guardian of the student, as referred to above, and also keeping in view his brilliant academic career, the proper course would have been to direct the school administration to hold special examination, so far the writ petitioner was concerned, as an exceptional case. 13. The findings of the learned single Judge of this Court, however, on the question of maintainability of the writ application appear to be valid, based on cogent reasons and settled law of the Apex Court, as referred to above. 14. It appears from the materials on record that the Bihar State Electricity Board has some control over the school in question and is engaged in imparting education and it would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. So far the direction of the learned single Judge of this Court is concerned, it does not appear to be sustainable in present form. 16. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons aforementioned, the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge of this Court is set aside. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, the appellant, the Principal of the school in question, is directed to arrange a special examination of Class XI for the petitioner forthwith after due information to him and in case, he passes out the examination he will be promoted to higher Class and would be allowed to attend the Classes. 17. This order, however, would not be a precedent in any other case, as this necessary direction has been issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of.