Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—This writ petition has been filed by a student through his father aged about 17 years, being aggrieved by the action of opposite party No. 9 i.e. Principal La Martiniere College, Lucknow declining him admission in standard XI. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the reply dated 21.6.2015 submitted by the Principal to the District inspector of Schools Anglo India Schools, Lucknow and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit him in standard XI (Science-Biology stream) of La Martiniere College, Lucknow for the academic session 2015-16 and specifically to the District Magistrate, Lucknow for taking necessary action in the matter in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner herein indisputably has studied for the last 13 years in the La Martiniere College Lucknow i.e. from Nursery to standard X. When admissions to standard XI were being made, the case of the petitioner was also considered on submission of requisite admission form and ultimately the same was declined as is borne out from the counter-affidavit and from the submissions made at the Bar. The admission was declined on account of reservations of the father of the student with regard to his participation in certain activities of the school which form part of the extra curricular activities and according to the college were necessary for over all development of the child.

3. During the course of argument Sri Jai Deep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Altaf Mansoor submitted that all along the father of the petitioner did not get alongwith the teachers of the school who are veritably perturbed by his attitude towards them, it was also said that some complaint had also been made by him to the District Magistrate in the year 2008 with regard to certain activities in the institution. Considering all this, the Principal of the College undertook a consultative process with the teachers for admission of the students in class XI and it was ultimately decided not to give admission to the petitioner-student.

4. The school has fairly stated that they do not have any grievance as regards the conduct, behaviour and studies of the concerned student but the problem was with the father.

5. The contention of Sri Ramesh Pandey learned counsel for petitioner is that having studied in the school for last 13 years and having secured about 89% marks in standard X there was no justifiable reason for the school for not granting admission to the petitioner in class XI. Not taking admission of the petitioner in standard XI is an act of high handedness and arbitrariness. The father of the petitioner approached the District Magistrate who ordered an enquiry into the matter wherein it was found that the Principal had acted in a high handed and arbitrary manner, therefore, an explanation was called from the School and directions were also issued to admit the student but the Principal of the school had adopted an intransigent attitude and declined to admit the student citing the minority status of the school and stating that admission to standard XI was not a matter of automatic promotion and it was the discretion of the Principal to admit or deny admission to a student in standard XI which according to petitioner was arbitrary in nature and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. The direction of District Authorities had also been ignored by the Principal. Sri Pandey relied upon various decisions in support of his case; namely, Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 12 SCC 331, K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another, (1997) 3 SCC 571, Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others, (2015) 3 SCC 251, Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 SCC 649, Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (2003)6 SCC 697 and T.M.A. Pai