( 1 ) THE petitioner a minor student, acting through his father, has filed this petition on 17. 9. 1993 seeking a Writ of Certiorari setting aside the order of the respondent No. 3 an educational institution detaining the petitioner in the XI class treating him not entitled to promotion to XII class and a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his studies in XII class and also allow him to appear in CBSE Board examinations of XII standard.

( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3, The Army Public School is an educational institution of which the respondent No. 4 is the Principal. The respondent No. 1, UOI has been unnecessarily joined as a party to the petition presumably under a misapprehension of the petitioner that the UOI (through its Department of Education) had something to do with the institution. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, through Director of Education also appears to be an unnecessary party in view of the stand taken by the other respondent that it was not receiving any grant-in-aid from the education department.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a civilian. The educational institution respondent No. 3 though primarily intended to cater to the educational needs of children of the army personnel accommodates children of civilian also. The petitioner was admitted in the school right from K. G. class and had continued to prosecute his studies till class XI. In the board examination of Class X he had secured 56% marks. In march, 1993 he had appeared for class XI examination but he could obtain an agregate of 35% marks only. He was allowed to take retest in two subjects i. e. mathematics and economics. The result of the retest was placed "under consideration" and ultimately he was declared to have been detained in class XI in view of his having not succesfully cleared the retest.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the new Principal of the institution was not behaving properly, more so with the civilians. The parents of the petitioner had lodged complaint of the Principal with the management and that had further annoyed him. According to the petitioner he was delebrately detained inspite of his having good academic records for the previous years. The petitioner has also complained of discrimination as other students similarly situtated as the petitioner were either allowed promotion to class XII or were issued transfer certificates entiting them to admission in class XII in other educational institutions of their own choice.

( 5 ) THE respondents No. 3 and 4 have in their written statement denied all the material averments made by the petitioner. According to them the educational institution maintains high standards of education. The students who take the board examination are carefully screened at class IX and class XI and if they are not likely to do well at the board examination, are detained based on their performance over the year. As per existing policy promotion to higher class from class IX and class XI are granted to students securing 40% in agreegate and 40% in individual subjects. In the academic year 1992- 93 the management had decided to reduce the standard of 40% to 35% and to all the students securing less than 35% marks in not P{=3 more than two subjects to take retest in those subjects. The pass percentage for the retest was further reduced to 33% and the students who did not meet this criteria were obviously detained in the same class. The petitioner had secured 11% marks in mathematics and 23% marks in economics at the retest. The petitioner was found weak throughout the academic year. No student below the level of performance as fixed by the policy was promoted to Class XII. In the matter of wards of serving personnel who led a distured domestic life and did not get a chance of studing in one school continuously, if their performance was not upto mark entitling them for promotion to higher standard, the parents were given an option of either retai