1. The petitioners herein run un-aided private schools in the capacities shown in the title of the petition. They have prayed for quashing of Govt. Orders No. 121-Edu of 1998 dated 22.1.98 and No. 314-Edu of 1998 dated 2.3.98. Further relief for quashing all consequential and incidental order passed thereunder has also been prayed.

2. The petitioners have averred that by passing the above said orders the Govt. has completely over-hauled the schemes of the examinations of 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th classes. These schemes have been attached as annexures A, B and c and are known as "Continuous and Comprehensive evaluation schemes." These Schemes were formulated by the J&K State Board of School Education after comprehensive study done by the experts in the respective fields of education and they were made applicable to all types of schools which consist of schools run by the Govt., private schools aided by the Govt. and un-aided private schools. These schemes are aimed to promote talent in the students in conducting the examinations through internal examiners. The schemes had been yielding good results but the impugned orders will have the tendentious effect of prohibiting the concerned subject teachers to be members of the supervisory staff of the examinations as well as Evalutors. The orders make it compulsory for a student to repeat the class and no provision has been kept for re-evaluation of the papers. In order to qualify for class 9th examination, it is required to obtain 33% marks in any four subjects contrary to the requirement of the schemes where this percentage was compulsory in respect of three subjects only. Exorbitant examination fee has been prescribed which is beyond the capacity of an ordinary student. Unauthorised persons were associated when fee structure was fixed vide annexure-H.

3. Respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5 in their objections have taken preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. They have pleaded that petition could not be filed on behalf of Federation which is not registered recognised body. On facts it is pleaded that the orders are valid as the Govt. under section 10 of the J&K State Board of School Education Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as Act) had the power to pass them. They have improved the schemes in question by ensuring uniformity in the examinations and providing comprehensive evaluation.

4. Respondent-2 in the objections has pleaded that petitioners have no legal or fundamental right to challenge the orders.

5. Heard the arguments.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that it was obligatory for the govt. to take advice from the Education Board before the impugned orders could be issued as those orders deal with matters of policy relating to elementary education, secondary education and higher secondary education. This obligation was under sec. 3 of the Act. Exorbitant fees have been prescribed and that will debar the poor strata of the society to educate their children. To receive education is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and any action which deprives a person to have the education is unconstitutional. On facts he has argued that private un-aided schools are imparting better education and giving good examination results. Under the impugned orders, the management of the examinations have been entrusted to the respective Principals of the concerned DIET institutions in the Districts which lack infrastructure to conduct the examinations. These orders are thus defeating the aims and objects of the Act and are bad in the eye of law.

7. Counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that section 10 of the Act defines the powers and functions of the Board and the govt. is competent to adopt broad educational policies and issue directions and instructions to the Board to implement them. The Board is under obligation to carry them besides the functions enumerated in section 10 of the Act.

8