JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. - Petitioner No.1, who is the parents' Association of the students of DAV Public School and petitioner No.2 is a student of Class X of DAV Public School, Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar, have filed the present writ petition assailing the stipulations made in the notice dated 27.8.2011 and 1.02.2012 under Annexure-1 and 2 respectively issued by the DAV Public School, Unit-VIII, Opp. party No.4 fixing the cut-off mark for taking admission in Class-XI by the students of the said school who have appeared the Class-X C.B.S.E. Examination, 2012. 2. The short facts of the case are that the wards of the members of the petitioner No.1-association have been prosecuting their studies in the D.A.V. Public School, Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar, which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. The grievance of the petitioner No.1- association is that while the students of Class-X are going to appear at the CBSE Examination, 2012 in the month of March, 2012, the Impugned notice dated 27.8.2011 has been published by opposite party No.4 stipulating the eligibility criteria for taking admission in Standard XI during the academic session 2012-13. The criteria are as follows: (1) Provisional admission to Class XI shall be made 6n the basis of the result score in SA-I (Examination), 2011 in Class-X. (2) Students securing 300 and above marks in aggregate out of 400 (Full Mark 80 x 5 subjects) and 60 in mathematics will be eligible to take admission in Class XI with the following subject groups. English (Compulsory), Physics, Chemistry, Maths, Biology/Comp. Sc./Phy. Edn. (3) Students securing 240 and above marks in aggregate out of 400 (Full Mark 80 x 5 subjects will be eligible to take admission in Class XI with the following subject groups. English (Compulsory), Economics, Business Studies, Accountancy, Phy. Edn./Maths/Comp. Sc./Odia (4) Students securing 132 and above marks in aggregate out of 400 (Full Mark 80 x 5 Subjects) will be eligible to take admission into Class XI with the following subject groups. English (Compulsory), History, Economics, Geography, Phy. Edn./Pol. Sc. Psychology/Odia. (5) The above group of electives will be offered subject to availability of minimum 20 number of students." Subsequently another notice was made on 01.02.2012 (Annexure-2) stipulating some other conditions for admission into Class XI of the school. English (Compulsory), History, Economics, Geography, Phy. Edn./Pol. Sc. Psychology/Odia. (5) The above group of electives will be offered subject to availability of minimum 20 number of students." Subsequently another notice was made on 01.02.2012 (Annexure-2) stipulating some other conditions for admission into Class XI of the school. The relevant conditions are as follows: (i) If a candidate does not clear AISSE-2012 in the first chance, he/she will not be allowed for final admission and money deposited at the time of provisional admission will be refunded except tuition fee. (ii) The merit list of candidates for counselling and provisional admission will be displayed on 26.03.2012 at 5.00 P.M. on the School Notice Board. No individual letter of intimation will be sent to the candidates. Provisional admission will be on 28.03.2012 at 11.00 A.M. The grievance of the petitioners is that the school authorities have fixed the cut-off marks as minimum eligibility criteria for provisional admission into Class-XI, which is contrary to the guidelines of the CBSE. It is submitted that as per the CBSE circular dated 29.7.2009 first preference shall be given to the own students on the basis of the common admission criteria. It is further submitted that fixation of minimum cut-off mark, i.e. 75% for Science Stream in the SA-1 examination in Class-X can never be said to be a qualifying examination for Class-XI because the SA-1 examination covers only 50% of the courses of Class-X syllabus and carries only 20% weightage in the final marks obtained in Class-X by the students as per, the Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation system prescribed by the CBSE. That apart, neither the CBSE nor the School has conducted the final examination for Class-X as on 1.2.2012 and therefore, issuance of such notification is misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that because of fixation of such arbitrary stipulations in the notice dated 27.8.2011 under Annexure-1, many meritorious students, who have secured more than CGPA 8 out of total 10, have been denied admission into Class XI, the list of such students is annexed as Annexure-5. Therefore, it is submitted that the eligibility criteria fixed by the school in the notice dated 27.8.2011, is arbitrary and is not sustainable in law as the school authorities cannot fix the cut-off mark as minimum eligibility criteria to eliminate its own students for taking admission in higher class i.e. Class-XI in the same school. 3. Therefore, it is submitted that the eligibility criteria fixed by the school in the notice dated 27.8.2011, is arbitrary and is not sustainable in law as the school authorities cannot fix the cut-off mark as minimum eligibility criteria to eliminate its own students for taking admission in higher class i.e. Class-XI in the same school. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by opp. party No.3 refuting the allegations of the petitioners wherein a stand has been taken that they have evolved their own criteria to admit the students in Class-XI as per the CBSE guidelines and provisional admission has been given before publication of the result of Class-X to enable the students to compete in All India level examination for admission and to continue their studies pursuant to the letter issued by the CBSE-on 20.7.2007, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit. Further, it is stated that the eligibility criteria fixed by the school for admission in Class XI was prepared having due regards to the academic level required for different groups of subjects on the basis of performance in SA-1. The CBSE guidelines dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure-3) also stipulate that first preference for Class-XI admission shall be given to the own students on the basis of common admission criteria evolved by the school and in view of the said guidelines the school has invariably given admission to its own students into Class XI and thus, there is no violation of the CBSE guidelines by the school authorities. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the cut-off mark has been rationally fixed keeping in view the intellectual demands of different streams/courses and after the school students are admitted in different streams as per the cut-off marks, if any seat remains vacant appropriate strategy has been decided to be taken up to fill up such seats in a fair and transparent manner. Accordingly, the school authorities have already given provisional admission to 125 students as per the criteria fixed in Annexure-1. It is further stated that the total number of students appeared the Crass X CBSE Examination was 273, but in science stream in Class XI, the total seats is only 168. Accordingly, the school authorities have already given provisional admission to 125 students as per the criteria fixed in Annexure-1. It is further stated that the total number of students appeared the Crass X CBSE Examination was 273, but in science stream in Class XI, the total seats is only 168. As per the criteria fixed in Annexure-1, all total 125 students have been provisionally admitted in Class XI in science stream in total exclusion of outsiders and the balance 43 students of the said school in science, stream will get an opportunity for selection on the basis of merit in the entrance test for which necessary applications have been invited. So far as the other streams, like Commerce and Humanities are concerned, out of total 56 nos. of seats in Commerce, 16 nos. of students of the said school have been provisionally admitted in Class, XI and the rest 40 nos. of seats are to be filled up through the common entrance test though the total nos. of 35 students of the said school have applied for Commerce wing and out of total 56 nos. of seats in Humanities subject, only four nos. of students have applied for the same, but no students have been admitted in Class XI in Humanities subject of the said school. The notice for the entrance test was published in the newspaper on 31.3.2012 (Annexure-C/3) and thus, the school authorities have given chance to the left out students of the school for taking admission in Class XI through the entrance test along with outside students. Further, the opp. party No.3 has taken a stand that the school is a private school and does not get any aid from the Government and being unaided school, it has its own fee structure. Further, on account of a dispute to fee revision effected in 2009-10, the school authorities are collecting the fee as per the direction of this Court and continuing to admit/re-admit the students on the basis of the fees applicable during 2008-09 and the school authorities have challenged the order of the Court before the apex Court, which is pending. Further, on account of a dispute to fee revision effected in 2009-10, the school authorities are collecting the fee as per the direction of this Court and continuing to admit/re-admit the students on the basis of the fees applicable during 2008-09 and the school authorities have challenged the order of the Court before the apex Court, which is pending. Therefore, they have also given notice vide Annexure-2 that the fee .structure will be notified at the time of publication of the merit list and finally prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as the school authorities have not discriminated the students and no cause of action arose for filing the writ petition by the petitioners. In support of the aforesaid decision, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court• in The State Financial Corporation and another v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another, AIR 2002 SC 834 and submitted that Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed and the observations of the Courts are not to be read as Euclid's thermos nor as provisions of the statute and these observations must be read in the context in which they appear. In the said decision it has also been held that the judgments of the Courts are not to be construed as statutes. 4. Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the CBSE, opposite party No.2 submitted that the CBSE has issued guidelines on 29.7.2009 taking into consideration that +2 course is crucial and turning point of the career of a student and the same depends on the higher studies and bright future of. a student and specifically has given instruction to its affiliated schools regarding admission of its own students so that the students will not be harassed or prohibited to take admission in Class XI keeping in view the psychology of the students and uncertainty of admission in Class XI in the same school, where they have studied upto Class X. 5. a student and specifically has given instruction to its affiliated schools regarding admission of its own students so that the students will not be harassed or prohibited to take admission in Class XI keeping in view the psychology of the students and uncertainty of admission in Class XI in the same school, where they have studied upto Class X. 5. The moot question that arises for consideration this writ petition is as to whether the school authorities are justified n fixing the cut-off mark for taking admission of their own students in Class XI in different streams pursuant to the notice in Annexures-1 and 2 and allowing the left out unsuccessful students of the school to appear the entrance test with outsiders for taking admission in Class XI in different ejective group of subjects. 6. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in, the Principal, Cambridge School and another v. Ms. Payal Gupta and others, AIR 1996 SC 118 , submitted that that the head of an educational institution is not authorised to prescribe a cut-off level of marks for continuance of further studies in higher class in the same school by a student who passes a public examination. Therefore, where a student passed Xth class which was a public examination of Central Board of Secondary Education in unaided recognised school, he/she cannot be denied admission in XIth class of the same school by the head of the institution by prescribing cut-off level of marks (in the instant case 75% in SA-l). It was further observed that once a student is admitted to a school, the same admission continues class after Class until he passes the last examination for which the school gives training and no fresh admission or readmission is contemplated from one class to the other. Therefore, in a Higher Secondary School, the examination of tenth class cannot be regarded as a terminal examination for those who want to continue their study in eleventh and twelfth classes of the said school. The question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school for the purpose of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in some other institution. The question of an admission test or the result in a particular class or school for the purpose of admission would arise only if a student of one institution goes for admission in some other institution. The question of admission test on the basis of result in a particular class will not be taken into account in the case of a student of the same school who passes the public examination. 7. Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and others v. Saurabh Chaudhary and others, AIR 2009 SC 608 . In the said case, the Supreme Court while dealing with admission of students to Class XI in Central School has categorically laid down as follows: . "x x x a Central School cannot deny admission to Class XI to one of its own students on the ground that he/she failed to secure the cut-off marks in the Class X CBSE examination. It was observed by the Supreme Court that there cannot be no objection to a school laying down cut-off mars for selection of suitable stream/course for a student, giving due regard to his/her aptitude as reflected from the class-X marks where there are more than one stream. xxxx" 8. Learned Senior Counsel also cited an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11028 of 2010 disposed of on 16.7.2010 (Udayabhanu Pani and others v. State of Orissa and others), wherein this Court also relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court held that: "The school authorities cannot fix the cut-off marks for giving admission in Class XI for the students of the same school, who passed Class X examination conducted by the CBSE and the students cannot be prohibited for attending the classes of XI on the above ground of eligibility on account of non-securing the cut-off marks as prescribed in Class X examination." 9. On perusal of the circular issued by the CBSE dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure-3), under the heading "Admission of students", clause(b) read as follows: "It is noted that some schools are giving preference to outside students for admission in Class XI on the basis of higher marks which should be avoided to prevent unhealthy competition. First preference for Class XI admission shall be given to own students on the basis of common admission criteria evolved by the school. First preference for Class XI admission shall be given to own students on the basis of common admission criteria evolved by the school. (Emphasis supplied) But nowhere in the said circular the CBSE has made fixation of any such cut-off mark of 75% in SA-1, i.e Pre-Board Examination of Class X. That apart, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew attention to Annexure-5, the list of some of the students of the said school, who have secured CGPA above 8.4 and less than 9.6 in the Class X CSSE Examination during the year 2011, and have been illegally denied admission in Class XI. 10. In the case in hand, this Court finds that there is no reason to fix two cut-off marks so. far as Science stream is concerned, i.e. a student has to secure 300 marks and above in aggregate and 60 marks in Mathematics in SA-1 . However, in course of argument, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 produced a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the Advisory Committee meeting held on 22.8.2011 comprising of three, experts, wherein it was observed that the students who have been very good in Mathematics in Class X have coped up well with the science subjects in Class XI and XII. If that is the reason to fix the cut-off marks, then why again the school authorities have fixed 300 marks in aggregate and 60 marks in Mathematics in SA-1 for taking provisional admission in Class XI. Further, on perusal of the detailed marks statement of the eligible students applied for admission in Class XI (Science stream), it reveals that the school authorities have given provisional admission upto SI. No. 125 and the students from SI. No. 126 to 136 who have secured 300 marks in aggregate and above 60 marks in Mathematics, have been denied to take provisional admission in Class XI. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no nexus between the aggregate marks and the marks secured in Mathematics in fixing the cut-off marks for taking provisional admission in Class XI for its own students. 11. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no nexus between the aggregate marks and the marks secured in Mathematics in fixing the cut-off marks for taking provisional admission in Class XI for its own students. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions and the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as this Court and the clear guidelines issued by the CBSE, this Court finds that the opposite party No.3-School could not have fixed the cut-off marks for giving provisional admission to Class.-XI for the students of the same school, who passed Class X examination conducted by the CBSE and therefore, the fixation of Gut-off mark as the eligibility criteria for being admitted in Class XI so far as the students of the opp. party No.3-school is concerned, is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, the notices dated 27.8.2011 and 1.2.2012 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively are quashed. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the opp. party No.3-School is directed to give admission to their own students in Class XI in Science, Commerce and Humanities stream and after giving admission to their own students, the opposite party No.3-school may follow the entrance test for filling up the remaining vacant seats by outside candidates in the respective courses on the basis of merit. No costs. Petition allowed.