D. MURUGESAN, J.

1. The following short but an important question arises for our consideration and a decision:

“Whether the school falling under the definition of Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 could apply the rule of reservation and allot a specified number of seats to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates out of 25% of the seats reserved for children belonging to economically weaker section and disadvantaged group under Section 12(1)(c) of the said Act.”

2. Both the writ petitions get disposed by this common order. For appreciation of issues raised, we refer to the facts culled out from the petition in WP(C) No.4194/2011. The petitioner‘s father applied on 08.3.2011 for admission of the petitioner in Class-I in Kendriya Vidyalaya School (hereinafter referred to as =School‘) as against 25% of the seats earmarked for the children belonging to economically weaker section and disadvantaged group for free and compulsory elementary education in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as =the Act‘) for the Academic Year 2011-12. He was denied admission by the school on the ground that out of 25% of the seats allotted, 15% of the seats were earmarked for SC, 7.5% seats for ST and the remaining 2.5% seats for other weaker section as against the total 10 seats representing 25%. In the result, 6 seats were earmarked for SC candidates, 3 seats for ST candidates and the remaining 1 seat was earmarked for the children belonging to economically weaker section/below poverty line/Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer)/Disabled children, which will also be subjected to random method (lottery system) to select one candidate. As the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration against the one seat, he was not selected. This necessitated the petitioner to question the classification of 25% seats as unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the provisions of ?the Act. With the same grievance, the petitioner has also sought for direction to school to reframe its admission guidelines for the Academic Year, 2012-13.

3. W.P. (C) No.801 of 2012 is filed by Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group and the petitioner in this petition is also seeking for a similar relief for quashing the very same clause.

4. In order to answer the issue, it is necessary for us to look into the circumstances under which the said Act came to be enacted. Part IV of the Constitution of India relates to Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 41 directs that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing to right to work, to educate and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of undeserved want. The Supreme Court in Samir Vs. State AIR, 1982 SC 66 and in Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 1858 held that the directive principles are not fundamental rights and are not judicially enforceable as such. However, once the State by either its legislative or administrative action provides facilities for education, such action must conform to the standard of equality and rationality underlying Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Having noticed that the directive principles cannot be enforced as fundamental rights and only in the event such facilities are extended by the State either through legislation or by administrative action and in which the Courts are empowered to test the same as not offending Article 14 or Article 21A of the Constitution of India, Article 21A was inserted by the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002. By that Article, it is provided that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to a child of the age between 6 and 14 years in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine. A right which was originally recognized