ORDER : The petitioner-Malnadu Kannada High School has filed this writ petition in this Court on 25.04.2017 aggrieved by the order passed by the Respondent No.3Director Secondary Education (for short ‘Director’), Department of Public Instructions, Bengaluru, for derecognizing the School and stopping the Grant on account of the fact that the petitioner failed to maintain minimum number of students in the said School as required under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Educational Instituions (Recognition of Primary and Secondary Schools) Rules, 1999. 2. Clause (K) of Condition No.4 requires that the petitioner-Educational Institution has to maintain a minimum strength of 40 students in respect of lower primary, 100 students in respect of upper primary and 25 students in each standard in respect of High Schools. The 8th, 9th and 10th Standards are covered by the parameters of High School and the petitioner Institution was supposed to maintain required number of 25 students in each of these Standards. 3. Upon inspection on 22.06.2016, it was found that 14 students were present against 14 students admitted in 8th Standard, 19 students were present against 25 students admitted in 9th standard and 24 students were present against 27 students admitted in 10th standard. The impugned order AnnexureF dated 10.02.2017 also refers to the previous notices under Reference No.2 given to the petitioner Institution and since the petitioner Institution failed to maintain minimum number of the students in the said classes the Respondent No.3Director cancelled the recognition and the Grant-in-aid to the petitioner Institution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Institution Mr. Somashekharaiah R.P., has brought to the notice of the Court the Affidavit Annexure-D given by the petitioner-Institution to the said Respondent No.3Director on 20.09.2016 in which he undertook to maintain the strength of the students in the coming academic session. 5. Learned AGA Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, appearing for the Respondents1 to 5 submitted since recognition and Grant-in-aid has financial implications and the Rules are mandatory, the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.3Director dated 10.02.2017 is justified and the same was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Institution. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the impleaded TeachersRespondents6 to 11 of the petitioner-Institution also supported the continuation of the recognition to the said School and submitted that the Management of the school may be directed to provide the necessary infrastructure in the petitioner-Institution. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the impleaded TeachersRespondents6 to 11 of the petitioner-Institution also supported the continuation of the recognition to the said School and submitted that the Management of the school may be directed to provide the necessary infrastructure in the petitioner-Institution. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the Respondent No.3Director cannot be sustained and it deserves to be quashed. The said Regulation by way of Condition No.4 can be said to be only directory in nature and cannot result in derecognition and the State cannot stop the Grant-in-aid even if the number of students falls slightly below the minimum number required. Apparently, in 8th Standard, the minimum number of 25 students was not achieved by the said school. However, the number of students in 9th Standard were 19 against 25 students required and in 10th Standard the number of students admitted were 27 students and 24 students were present on the date of Inspection. When such is the case, the petitioner Institution has not reduced the number of teachers, who are working in the petitioner’s Institution and if the petitioner institution fails to admit sufficient number of students for teachers beyond control, it cannot be closed leaving the existing students and teachers in a lurch. 8. The situation of imparting education in our country on the other hand is one of abysmally lesser infrastructure, than the number of students required to be given such education. The very purpose of Right to Education Act, 2009 is to direct the Government, Private and Public Schools to admit larger number of students to ensure achievement of the object of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India is to provide sufficient infrastructure to educational institutions. In these circumstances, if the existing schools’ recognition is allowed to be withdrawn in these type of circumstances as indicated in the impugned order that would deny the very purpose of the education to those who deserve to get it. The impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed and the same is quashed accordingly. 9. The writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. I.A.No.2/17 filed for vacating the interim order also stands disposed of accordingly.