recognized all over the world observing that education was perhaps the most important function bestowed on the Government and the very foundation of good citizenship. It was doubtful if any child would succeed in life if he was denied opportunity to education. The right to education finds reference in three Articles of Part IV, viz., Article 41, Article 45 and Article 46 which shows the importance attached to the said rights. Referring to Mohini Jain (Miss) versus State of Karnataka and Others , (1992) 3 SCC 666, it was observed that the right to education, though implicit in the right to life, was somewhat different from the latter in the sense that the said right was not determined by perspective of threat. It means that the State cannot deprive a citizen of his right to education except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Education means knowledge and knowledge itself is power and, therefore, a part of right to life, but this does not mean that every citizen of this country can command to the State to provide him education of his choice. Differentiation was made between the right to free education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years as stated in Article 45, now a fundamental right in Article 21A, and right to education of citizens after they complete the age of 14 years referable to Article 41 of Part IV of the Constitution which states that the citizen has a right to call upon the State to provide educational facilities to him within the limits of its economic capacity and development. In this context, it was observed that the limits of economic capacity were ordinarily speaking matters within the subjective satisfaction of the State. We would note that the aforesaid decision refers to Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to life. In the context of the present case, however, we are dealing with the issue of right of open school Board students to appear in NEET examination who, on
