The court's decision established that the enhancement of fee structure in educational institutions is a matter of policy and not subject to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

B. P. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by one of the representatives of the parents of the students of the Sainik School, Bhubaneswar, questioning the legality of enhancement of the tuition and diet charges of the students.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the present writ petition are : The Sainik School at Bhubaneswar is one of the 18 Sainik Schools existing throughout India and the same was created under the control of the Ministry of Defence for the purpose of educating the students of different income groups of the society and to train them to become Sainiks. It is stated that at the time of admission of students, it was given to understand by the authorities of the School that Government would provide scholarship basing upon the income of the parents and the parents considering the said scholarship of the Government got their children admitted in the school. But the parents whose children were not eligible to get any scholarship, considering the total expenditure to be incurred during the year decided to get their children admitted and accordingly prepared to meet the expenses. It has been further stated that the course undertaken in the school in Central Board of Secondary Education course and it is not so easy to change the school at the middle of the session. According to the petitioner, during the year 1996-97 the parents were to deposit a total fee of Rs. 11,000/- including all charges of the Sainik School but during the year 1997 the aforesaid fee was enhanced to Rs. 14,000/- for the session 1997-98 and the said enhanced amount was collected from the parents. It is further stated by the petitioner that in 1998 the school authorities again enhanced the other fees, i. e. , pocket money from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-; incidental charges from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-; clothing charges from Rs. 600/- Rs. 750/- and added two other charges, i. e. , mediclaim of Rs. 70/- and diet charges of Rs. 1350/-, for the session 1998-98. These additional amounts were also collected from the parents in addition to the fees so deposited by them for that year. During the year 1999 the School authorities added two other charges, i. e. , text book and stationery charges to the other fees for the session 1999-2000 and, according to the petitioner, all the enhanced amounts have been collected from the parents of the students. But while the parents of the students deposited the entire enhanced school fee for the session 1999-2000, the Principal-O. P. No. 4 by his and office order dated 15-7-1999 revised the school fees and enhanced the same from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and the diet charges from Rs. 1350/- to Rs. 5500/- per annum per student and accordingly the parents were directed to pay the differential amount by 15-8-1999 vide Annexure-4, which is impugned in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enhancement of the fees of the students by Rs. 10,150/- in the mid-session is illegal and arbitrary as it is evident from the action taken by the authorities in the past that the fees have been increased by 130% within a span of three academic years, i. e. , from 1996-97 to 1999-2000. That apart, the authorities have also enhanced the other fees and charges without consulting the parents of the students and the said action of the authorities is illegal and arbitrary. The next part of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Government of Orissa has not charged the income slabs of the parents despite various revisions in the scales of pay, as a result of which Class III and Class-IV employees whose income slabs have now increased to more than Rs. 3,000/- were compelled to pay more and had their slabs for the purpose of scholarship been increased according to the pay revision the Class III and Class IV employees would have got full scholarship. On the aforesaid allegations, counsel for the petitioner argued that the school ultimatel