UNION OF INDIA Vs. B VISWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) We find no merit in the appeal. We, however, propose to make some observations, which, of course, are not besides the matter before us. The Union of India has come in appeal against a judgment holding, inter alia, that a school allegedly established by one Atomic Energy Educational Society, cannot deny admission to the students who are not children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy of the Union of India. It is on record that eversince the establishment of the school, mainly run on the grant received from the Union of India, it has been permitting admission to the children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy stationed in the city of Hyderabad and living in the colony established for their residence as well as children of others who live in the colony and in other parts of the ; city. When a number of students, however, who are not children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy, have reached courses of studies upto 8th and 9th class in the school, they have been served , by the management of the school with a notice that its apex body has taken a decision to admit only the children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy. Realising, it seems, however that ; telling a direct 'no' and asking them to keep out of the school, might invite intervention by the competent authorities, the management improvised the alleged provisional admission saying that in that class they were admitted only provisionally and the school was not guaranteeing them admission to continue their studies and that their applications would be forwarded to the Secretary, Atomic Energy Educational Society, Bombay, for consideration and "if seats are available then only Secretary may grant admission to your ward". Several of the children, who studied in the school and intended accordingly to continue their studies for there was no reason for them to discontinue their studies and also for there was no reason for their removal from the institution, have moved this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 13118, 13119, 13120, 15616, 16524, 16946 and 17649 of 1995. A learned single judge of this Court has held as follows :

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the finding recorded by the learned single Judge -