Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the grandfather of two minor children S.Swetha and S.Srinithi. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the second respondent to consider his representations dated 16.04.2012 and 25.04.2012 and for a consequential direction to admit his two granddaughters namely, minor S.Swetha in 8th standard and minor S.Srinithi in 4th standard so as to enable them to continue their education. 2. When the writ petition came upon 12.06.2012, notice on admission was granted and private notice was permitted to be served on the respondents. On such notice, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 30.06.2012. 3. In the meanwhile, this Court directed the District Educational Officer, Coimbatore cum Inspector of Schools (Matriculation) in charge to conduct an inspection in the school and to find out whether seats are vacant for accommodating the petitioner's granddaughters. Accordingly, the said officer sent a report dated 26.06.2012 addressed to the learned Government Pleader stating that under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Act 2009, there cannot be any midstream admission. In so far as admission of the girl child in 4th standard is concerned, it was stated that the said Boarding School is recognized from 6th to 12th standard and there is no scope for admitting the child in 4th standard, but there are vacancies in the 8th standard. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to get instructions whether the petitioner is willing to admit the second child alone in 8th Standard. On instructions, Ms.Gowri, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that they are willing to admit the second child alone in 8th standard and the petitioner is also willing to pay school fees as well as boarding fee. 5. Since there has been vacancies in 8th standard, this Court directed the learned counsel for the second respondent Management to produce the registers. It is seen from the records that out of three sections in 8th standard, two sections were having 34 students and one section was having 33 students and therefore, this Court wanted to know whether the school is willing to admit the child in the 8th Standard. 6. However, Mr. V.Ramajagadeesan, learned counsel for the second respondent stated that the school is already having waiting list for admitting students. 6. However, Mr. V.Ramajagadeesan, learned counsel for the second respondent stated that the school is already having waiting list for admitting students. Further, they have not received any application from the petitioner except a transfer letter for admission of his granddaughters. In respect of the said child, the school cannot conduct classes in State Board Syllabus. It is also stated as of now the children are studying in Janarthana Matric Higher Secondary School at Karadivavi, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur. There is no fundamental right for the petitioner to insist that their children should be admitted to the second respondent school alone. However, a larger question was raised, whether provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Act 2009 will apply to a boarding school. 7. It must be noted that vires of the act came to be challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court gave its final pronouncement upholding the provisions of the Act in its entirety. In its application, only in respect of un-aided minority schools provisions of Sections 12 and 18 have been exempted vide judgment reported in 2012 (4) SCALE 272 [Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and another. In the very same judgment, the Supreme Court also went into the question whether the provisions of the Act will apply even to boarding schools and to that question, in paragraph 13, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "13. However, we want the Government to clarify the position on one aspect. There are boarding schools and orphanages in several parts of India. In those institutions, there are day scholars and boarders. The 2009 Act could only apply to day scholars. It cannot be extended to boarders. To put the matter beyond doubt, we recommend that appropriate guidelines be issued under Section 35 of the 2009 Act clarifying the above position." (Emphasis added) 8. Therefore, the Supreme Court itself has expressed doubts about the application of the Act to the boarding schools, wherein children are provided not only education but also residential accommodation. To put the matter beyond doubt, we recommend that appropriate guidelines be issued under Section 35 of the 2009 Act clarifying the above position." (Emphasis added) 8. Therefore, the Supreme Court itself has expressed doubts about the application of the Act to the boarding schools, wherein children are provided not only education but also residential accommodation. Since the matter was left to the decision of the concerned Government to issue appropriate guidelines under Section 35 of the Act, this Court directed the learned learned Additional Government Pleader to find out whether the State Government had issued any guidelines in respect of Section 35 of the Act subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 9. On instructions, learned Additional Government Pleader states, so far the State Government has not issued any guidelines in respect of Section 35. Therefore, in the light of the stand taken by the respondent and the Act also not been made directly applicable and that the admission of the petitioner's granddaughters is not guaranteed by the school management, the present writ petition cannot be maintainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.