JUDGMENT M.M. DAS,J. These two writ petitions have been filed by the parents associations constituted by the parents of the students of Delhi Public School, Nalco Nagar, Angul and Delhi Public School, Damanjodi along with others, who are of parents/guardians of students of those schools and are not employees of National Aluminum Company Ltd. (in short, ‘the NALCO’) challenging increase in registration fees and monthly tuition fees in respect of their children reading in Nursery to Class-XII in the said schools. 2. It appears that the school authorities issued a circular in the month of March, 2009 in both the schools prescribing the fees in respect of NALCO Nagar, Angul D.P.S. and Damanjodi D.P.S. as quoted hereunder:- “DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL NALCO NAGAR Ref. DPS/AGL/Admn/87/2009 Date: 23.03.09 C I R C U L A R Dear Parents, As we are about to conclude the session, we wish to thank you for your cooperation and help extended during the session 2008-09. We look forward to your continued support in the year to come. The following is the schedule for distribution of Text Books for the session 2009 – 10 at Jr. School premises. The payment is to be made to the Book seller at the counter. Date Classes Timings 01.01.09 Nursery, Prep. I 8.00 A.M. – 1.00 P.M. 01.04.09 II, III, IV 2.00 p.m. – 6.30 P.M. (Evening 7.30 P.M. to 9.30 P.M. – Nursery, Prep. I, II, III, IV) 02.04.09 V, VI, VII 8.00 A.M. – 1 P.M. 02.04.09 VIII, IX 2. 00 P.M. – 6.30 P.M. (Evening 7.30 P.M. to 9.30 P.M. – V, VI, VII, VIII, IX) 03.04.09 All classes 8.00 P.M. – 1.00 P.M. All classes 2. 00 P.M. – 5.00 P.M. The new session will commence on 4th April, 2009 and the reporting time for the students is 6.30 A.M. and the classes will be over at 10.30 A.M. The students are required to wear summer uniform from 4th April, 2009 (Ties need not be worn). The students are allowed to put on canvas shoes on the days they have PT classes). The following is the fees chargeable from the wards of Non-Nalconians w.e.f. 01.04.2009. Sl. No. Particulars Revised fees 01. Annual Fees (per annum) Rs.2,400/- 02. Assignment fees (per annum) Rs.200/- 03. The students are allowed to put on canvas shoes on the days they have PT classes). The following is the fees chargeable from the wards of Non-Nalconians w.e.f. 01.04.2009. Sl. No. Particulars Revised fees 01. Annual Fees (per annum) Rs.2,400/- 02. Assignment fees (per annum) Rs.200/- 03. Tuition Fees a) Nursery to class – VIII (per month) b) Class IX & X c) Class XI & XII Rs.1,200/-(per month) Rs.1,300/-(per month) Rs.1,500/-(per month) The fees of NALCO, CISF, DPS & SVM employees wards remain unchanged. Your co-operation in this regard will be appreciated. (Sd/-V.K. Arora) Principal ” “ DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL DAMANJODI No: DPS: DMJ: ADM: 98 31st March 2009 Dear Parent, As per the decision taken by the school Managing Committee, the fee structure has been revised and will be implemented with effect from 1st April, 2009. The details are given below. SN. PARTICULARS FEE TRUCTURE 01 Registration Fees (One Time) Rs.400/- 02 Admission Fees (One Time) Rs.4000/- 03 Annual Fees (Annually) Rs.2400/- However, fees charged from the parents of Nalco, CISF & SVM remains as it was. All of you are requested to extend co-operation in this regard. With kind regards, Sincerely yours, Sd/-Deepanwita Das Principal (I/c) ” 3. The only question canvassed in both the writ petitions is that the school authorities are charging different fees from the children of employees of NALCO and from the children of the petitioners-parents who are not employees of NALCO and, therefore, the same amounts to discrimination. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions by the authorities of the schools, inter alia, stating that the Delhi Public Schools in both the places are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act and were established at Angul and at Damanjodi in the year 1984 and 1983 respectively pursuant to agreements dated 24.1.1984 and 28.9.1983 entered into between NALCO and the DPS society, New Delhi and both the schools were established by NALCO. The agreements have been annexed to the counter affidavits. 5. Mr. The agreements have been annexed to the counter affidavits. 5. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the NALCO as well as the school authorities submitted that pursuant to the agreement entered into between the Company-NALCO and the DPS society, as per its terms, NALCO provided land for establishment of the schools, it bore the entire cost of the building and other infrastructure and all the properties of the schools as per terms of the agreement are the properties of NALCO. The entire revenue deficit of the schools is also borne by the NALCO as per the contract. Children of employees of NALCO are given admission on priority basis to the tune of about 85% of the seats of the schools and the balance 15% is offered to the outsiders. In respect of the school at Angul, students, who were admitted after 2002, were being charged Rs. 500/-per month. Students admitted prior to 2002 have been paying Rs. 400/-per month. This arrangement was made for students, who are children of outsiders and not the children of NALCO employees. As far as children of NALCO employees are concerned, only Rs. 25/-was charged from them towards monthly fees which was subsidized by the company for the entire institution and the fees collected from the students is a meager amount in comparison with the expenses incurred by the school for imparting education which is of very high standard. A statement of income and expenditure has also been enclosed to the counter affidavit for the period from 1.4.2008 to 13.2.2009 showing a deficit of Rs. 2,66,30,950/-which is stated to have been borne by NALCO in respect of the school at Angul. Similarly, in respect of the school at Damanjodi, outsider students were charged Rs. 500/-per month after 2003-04 which was earlier Rs. 250/-per month and the income and the expenditure statement under Annexure-B/3 shows that there is a deficit of Rs.2,70,57, 504/-which is stated to have been borne by the NALCO. 6. With regard to the allegation of discrimination, Mr. Rath, submitted that same facilities are being provided to the children of the NALCO employees as well as the children of the petitioners and no discrimination can be alleged even though the children of NALCO employees are paying less monthly fees than the outsider students since the entire expenses of the school is being borne by the NALCO. 7. Rath, submitted that same facilities are being provided to the children of the NALCO employees as well as the children of the petitioners and no discrimination can be alleged even though the children of NALCO employees are paying less monthly fees than the outsider students since the entire expenses of the school is being borne by the NALCO. 7. This Court on perusal of the agreements entered into between the NALCO and the DPS society annexed to the counter affidavits finds that both the schools were primarily established to provide quality education to the children of the employees of the Company and, as stated by Mr. Rath, in order to give facility to the outsider students of the locality as a social corporate obligation, the Company allowed 15% of the seats to be filled up by the children of persons who are not employees of the Company. The objectives, therefore, for establishing both the schools were to provide quality education to the children of the employees of the company and in that view of the matter, the children of persons, who are not the employees of the Company and the children of the employees of the Company, who are studying in the said schools cannot be equated so as to allege discrimination. Mr. Rath further submitted that even assuming that the children of the petitioners and the other children, who are children of the employees of the Company, are all students and belong to one class, the differentiation with regard to collection of fees amounts to an intelligible differentia for which it cannot be said that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention that the school authorities have discriminated between the children of the petitioners and the children of the employees of the NALCO being students of same classes in the school, imparted with similar education and are to appear in the same examinations, they cannot be discriminated with regard to collection of fees from them and from the students, who are children of employees of NALCO. 9. It is no-doubt true that the children of the petitioners and the children of the employees of NALCO, all studying in same classes, are subjected to same tests and examinations by the school authorities. 9. It is no-doubt true that the children of the petitioners and the children of the employees of NALCO, all studying in same classes, are subjected to same tests and examinations by the school authorities. But, however, keeping in view the fact that a plea of unlawful discrimination cannot be adjudged unless the petition contains full averment of the grounds on which equality is claimed and the denial of equality is pleaded to be not based on a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved and discrimination with regard to equal treatment envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is to be a conscious discrimination, such allegation of discrimination is to be examined. Article 14 of the Constitution, which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, strikes at arbitrariness in State action in ensuring fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that state action or the action of an instrumentality of the State must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle, which is not discriminatory and such action should not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration as that would amount to denial of equality. As stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Air Port Authority of India and others, 1979 SC 1628, the principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is projected by Article 14 and it characterizes every State action, whether, it being under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. 10. But, however, it is to be remembered that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification. In order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded of an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that have been grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Such classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical or according to objects of occupation of the life. Such classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical or according to objects of occupation of the life. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the objects of the action under consideration (See Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 ) 11. It is well founded that Article 14 of the Constitution applies, when there is discrimination among the equals. Un-equals cannot claim equality. In Madhu Kishwar and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 SC 1864 , it has been held by the apex Court that every discrimination does not necessarily fall within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution and become liable to be struck off and every case has to be examined in the peculiar facts and circumstances involved therein otherwise it would create a chaotic situation. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms, in several cases, interpreting Article 14 of the Constitution, has laid down that the said Article permits reasonable classification on legally valid grounds, where two categories from a class cannot be held to be similarly situate and the issue of discrimination cannot be agitated if they are treated differently. (Emphasis supplied) 12. Examining the facts of the present case as already stated above, the object to be achieved by the NALCO was to give quality education to the children of its employees for which agreements were executed with Delhi Public School Society and the aforesaid two schools were established. From the facts, it is further revealed that though the children of employees of NALCO pay less fees than the children of the petitioners, such differential amount is made good by NALCO, which also meets all deficit expenses of the schools to run the schools and see that the schools impart quality education to the students. Hence, as contended by Mr. Rath, classifying the students, who are the children of the petitioners and other persons, not being employees of NALCO differently than the students who are children of NALCO employees is an intelligible differentia and it cannot be said that such classification is unreasonable. Hence, as contended by Mr. Rath, classifying the students, who are the children of the petitioners and other persons, not being employees of NALCO differently than the students who are children of NALCO employees is an intelligible differentia and it cannot be said that such classification is unreasonable. It is, therefore, seen that on the facts of the present case, no discrimination is found to have been meted out by the impugned action on the part of the school authorities so as to conclude that such action violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the writ petitions deserve no interference and being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.