Judgment :- 1. These two petitions were heard together. O.P. No. 123 is by the Manager of S. K. V. Middle School, Pullayil, a private school in the State and O. P. No. 55 is by a teacher of the same school. The 1st Respondent in both the petitions is the State of Travancore-Cochin and the 2nd Respondent, the Director of Public Instruction. The petitioner in O.P. No. 123 is the 3rd Respondent in O. P. No. 55. The facts may be briefly stated: 2. The petitioners' case is that S. K. V. Middle School was originally a Sanskrit School. It was converted into an academic school in 1947-48 when Form I was introduced. Forms II and III were started in the succeeding years. This change was made with the approval of the Department of Education, and Forms I to III were recognised by the Department. The 1st Respondent introduced a scheme in 1950 with the object of improving the service conditions of teachers in private schools. Teachers were thereby assured of security of service, uniform scale of salary, service conditions etc., and the Government undertook to guarantee the salaries of teachers. The Managers and staff of private schools were given the option to join the scheme and in the case of acceded schools, the managers were required to remit to the Government, 80 percent of the fees collected from pupils. This scheme known as the private secondary school scheme or the P. S. S. Scheme was later modified by another scheme dated 12 -11-1951. The S.K.V. School joined the scheme and thereby became an acceded school under the earlier scheme of 1951. At the time of acceding, this school was being conducted as an academic school and not a Sanskrit school and it continued as an academic school thereafter. The managements of private acceded schools had to file staff salary statements for approval by the Department. The staff salary statement for the period from 1-9-1950 was approved by the 2nd Respondent, who thereby recognised the school once again as an academic school. After the introduction of P. S. S. Scheme, the Managers of some Sanskrit schools in the State applied to the Government for permission to convert their schools to the academic type and the 1st Respondent passed an order on 1-9-1953 (Ext. P-I) regarding such schools. After the introduction of P. S. S. Scheme, the Managers of some Sanskrit schools in the State applied to the Government for permission to convert their schools to the academic type and the 1st Respondent passed an order on 1-9-1953 (Ext. P-I) regarding such schools. The relevant parts of the order are extracted below: " (1) All existing Sanskrit High and Mid. Schools which possess accommodation and site on the scale prescribed for academic schools will be allowed at their request to be converted into academic type with effect from the beginning of the academic year 1954-55 subject to the approval of the staff and arrangements for teaching by the Director of Public Instruction. (2) In case of Sanskrit schools which do not possess the required site and accommodation these should be provided before 1-5-1953 if the conversion of the school is to be allowed next year (1954-55). (3) These schools which are unable to satisfy these conditions and others if they wish, may continue as purely Sanskrit schools and if they attempt unauthorised conversion, their recognition will be withdrawn. (4) In regard to the Government schools, the Director of Public Instruction may recommend the conversion of such schools as are required to satisfy the local need for academic schools and close down the rest". This was modified by another order Ext. P-2 dated 2-6-1954 which provided as follows:-" (a) The Departmental Sanskrit schools will be continued as such (b) As regards Private Sanskrit schools such of them as have not been converted into academic type of schools in accordance with Clauses I and II of the above order will continue as Sanskrit schools". The order referred to in Clause (b) is Ext. P-I. According to the petitioner her school had become an academic school long before these orders were passed and the orders could not therefore apply to her school. The 2nd Respondent however began to insist that the school should provide additional accommodation of 50 cents of land in case recognition of the school as an academic one was to be granted. Thereafter the 2nd Respondent has been treating the school only as a Sanskrit school although its work as an academic school was not interfered with. However the staff salary statements were thereafter being approved only provisionally. On 17-11-1955 the 2nd Respondent informed the petitioner by a memo Ext. Thereafter the 2nd Respondent has been treating the school only as a Sanskrit school although its work as an academic school was not interfered with. However the staff salary statements were thereafter being approved only provisionally. On 17-11-1955 the 2nd Respondent informed the petitioner by a memo Ext. P-3 that until orders regarding conversion of the school into an academic one were received, staff for a Sanskrit school alone would be sanctioned for her school. The petitioner replied on 12-11-1955 that the Government order regarding conversion would not apply to the school Ext. P-4 is the copy of the said reply. The 2nd Respondent again informed the petitioner by memo dated 19-2-1955 (Ext P-5) that conversion would be allowed only if an area of 50 cents of land was also provided. On 9-1-1955 the petitioner informed the 2nd Respondent that she had no objection to meet the cost if the Government would compulsorily acquire and give 50 cents of land for the school. Ext. P-6 is the copy of the petitioner's letter to which the 2nd Respondent replied on 1-3-1956 by Ext. P-7 that steps for acquisition of additional land were being taken separately. Notwithstanding this assurance the District Education Officer by memo of June 1956 (Ext. P-9) enquired whether the area of 50 cents was provided. Consistent with the position that the school should be treated only as a Sanskrit school, the 2nd Respondent has declined to pay the salary of the Malayalam Pandit who has been working as such ever since the school became an academic one. The petitioner in O. P. 123 therefore prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction directing the Respondents to recognise the school as an academic one and to do such other appropriate acts necessary to enable such recognition to be made and also to grant such other appropriate writ, direction or order as the court may deem fit. 3. On behalf of the Respondents, an Assistant Secretary in the Education Section of the Secretariat has filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition. According to the Respondents there is no obligation under any statute or rule to accord recognition to the petitioner's school as the respondents in their discretion can grant, extend, continue or withdraw recognition according as their orders from time to time are complied with or not. According to the Respondents there is no obligation under any statute or rule to accord recognition to the petitioner's school as the respondents in their discretion can grant, extend, continue or withdraw recognition according as their orders from time to time are complied with or not. It is also stated that the petitioner's school has been sanctioned only as a Sanskrit school and that sanction for the benefits under the P. S. S. Scheme has also been accorded treating the school as a Sanskrit school. The petitioners had admitted in their application to the 2nd Respondent that formal sanction for conversion had not been accorded. The orders sanctioning staff salary statements for 1952-53 and 1953-54 distinctly mentioned that fixation of staff therein was only provisional. On 14-3-1955 the 2nd Respondent sanctioned disbursement of salary for the Malayalam Pandit for one year purely as a temporary measure. The school had not been converted into an academic one with the sanction or approval of the Respondents. The petitioner's case that at the time of accession to the P. S. S, Scheme the school was recognised as an academic one was denied. Even if the 2nd Respondent had allowed the school to be conducted as an academic one, it was open for the 2nd Respondent to impose conditions for the future working of the school. The petitioner submitted an application Ext. D-1 praying for recognition of the conversion of the school as an academic one. After referring to the various applications made by the petitioner and the orders thereon it was stated that the 2nd Respondent was not bound to sanction the salary statements before all the requirements were complied with. On these grounds it was prayed that the petition should be dismissed. 4. After referring to the various applications made by the petitioner and the orders thereon it was stated that the 2nd Respondent was not bound to sanction the salary statements before all the requirements were complied with. On these grounds it was prayed that the petition should be dismissed. 4. On grounds similar to those relied on by the petitioner in O. P. No. 123 the petitioner in O. P. 55 has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order to recognise the petitioner as a Malayalam Pandit in the S. K. V. Middle School, (now addressed as S. K. V. Sanskrit School) and to direct the Respondents to disburse the petitioner's salary and allowances and all other emoluments due from the beginning of the academic year 1955 56, or in the alternative to recognise the petitioner as a Sanskrit teacher and to disburse the pay, allowances and all other emoluments due to the petitioner from the beginning of the academic year 1955-56 and also to direct Respondents 1 and 2 to sanction all increments due till date in the sanctioned scheme. Respondents 1 and 2 opposed the petition on the grounds taken by them in O. P. No. 123. They also contended that the petitioner who was a teacher in a private school has no right to apply for a writ against Respondents 1 and 2. The 3rd Respondent who mainly supported the petitioner also contended that the alternative prayer in the petition ought not to be allowed as the school has already been recognised as an academic one. 5. O.P. No. 123 may be considered first. The position taken up by the Respondent is that the petitioner's school was not recognised as an academic one under the P. S. S. Scheme and that it could become an academic school only on such recognition being accorded. It was pointed out that the term "Academic School" was introduced for the first time by the rules framed under the P. S. S. Scheme. According to the Travancore Education Code, Educational institutions were classified according to the form of management, conformity or otherwise with the conditions of recognition, the nature and standard of instruction imparted, the sex of the pupils and whether the Schools were instructional or otherwise. According to the Travancore Education Code, Educational institutions were classified according to the form of management, conformity or otherwise with the conditions of recognition, the nature and standard of instruction imparted, the sex of the pupils and whether the Schools were instructional or otherwise. Academic schools were defined for the first time by the rules referred to above and the definition runs as follows: "Academic School means a School which is not a. Sanskrit School". Sanskrit School according to the rules means "A School where Sanskrit is taught as the first language in accordance with the scheme of studies sanctioned in G. O. Order No. Ed- 7-832/51 /EHL, dated 16-7-1951." It is therefore clear that all schools which were not Sanskrit schools as defined above were treated as academic schools for the purpose of the P. S. S. Scheme. The question of conversion of Sanskrit Schools to academic schools first engaged the attention of the Government when the Managers of some schools applied for such conversion after the introduction of the P.S.S. Scheme. The relevant order of the Government dated 1-9-53 has been referred to earlier. The question for decision in this case is whether the petitioner's schools is one to which sanction has to be accorded for conversion. It is seen from the records filed in the case as well as those made available at the hearing by the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the respondents that the petitioner's school ceased to be a Sanskrit school from the year 1947-48 when Form I was introduced. Ext. D-1 in O. P. No. 55 is a letter sent by the Division Inspector of Schools, Quilon, to the petitioner on 27-5-1949 and it reads as follows: "Sanction has been accorded in Director's letter No. 4261/111 GI.1-dated 19-5-1949 to Form II being recognised with effect from the beginning of the current school year 1949-50, subject to the condition that grant to Form II will be released only if the condition regarding financial guarantee is satisfied by the management." Form III was introduced in the year 1949-50 and Ext. D-2 in O. P. 55 is another letter dated 30-12-50 from the Inspector of Primary and Middle Schools, to the petitioner asking her to forward an application in triplicate for recognition of unrecognised classes. D-2 in O. P. 55 is another letter dated 30-12-50 from the Inspector of Primary and Middle Schools, to the petitioner asking her to forward an application in triplicate for recognition of unrecognised classes. Thus at the time of the introduction of P. S. S. Scheme this school was functioning not as a Sanskrit school but as an academic one having Forms I to III. The school was allowed to accede to the scheme as an academic school. Since the Government undertook the responsibility of paying the salary of teachers of acceded private schools the staff had to be approved and the managements had to send periodically staff salary statements for scrutiny and approval by the 2nd Respondent. Ext. D-4 is the staff salary statement for this school for the period commencing from 1-9-1950. The name of the school is described as S. K. V. Middle School, Pullayil. By Ext. D-4 the 2nd Respondent sanctioned a Malayalam Pandit also for the school. It is clear from Ext. D-4 that the recognition granted when Forms I to III were introduced was ratified and confirmed after the introduction of P. S. S Scheme. It was only for the later years that provisional approval of staff salary statements was given. From the facts stated above it is clear that the school was not a Sanskrit school at the time of accession and that it was recognised as an academic school under the P. S. S. Scheme also. The correspondence during the later period shows that the Department was insisting on the school providing an additional accommodation to the extent of 50 cents of land in addition to the 98 cents it had. The petitioner was informed that recognition as an academic school would be granted only if this requirement was fulfilled. The basis of this demand appears to have been Exts. P-I and P-2. The petitioner has consistently been taking the position that the later orders of the Government regarding conversion of Sanskrit schools into Academic schools could not apply to this school which had already been recognised as an academic school and allowed to join in the P. S.S. Scheme as such. It may be that the area is deficient according to orders issued by the Department from time to time. It may be that the area is deficient according to orders issued by the Department from time to time. It is open for the Respondents to call upon the petitioner to make up such deficiency and to withdraw the recognition in case of non-compliance. No question of granting recognition arises now in view of the fact that Forms I to III were introduced with the approval of the department. The notes of inspection prepared by the Inspecting Officers also show that the department was treating the school as an academic one until the managers of some Sanskrit schools moved the Government for converting their schools into Sanskrit schools. The orders passed by the Government on such representations cannot have any retrospective effect so as to affect the petitioner's school. The 2nd Respondent has been taking up an unreasonable attitude in refusing to treat the school as an academic one. The stage of recognition was over before the introduction of P. S. S. Scheme. The position taken up by the 2nd Respondent cannot therefore be accepted. The Respondents are bound to treat the school as an academic one and the school is entitled to all the benefits of the P. S. S. Scheme which are normally available to an academic school that has acceded to the scheme Original Petition No. 123 must therefore be allowed. 6. Original Petition No. 55 however stands on a different footing. The petitioner is a teacher of a school under private management. The position of such a teacher has been considered by the Travancore-Cochin High Court as well as this court in several decisions. C.K. Kumara Kurup v. The State of Travancore-Cochin and others (O.P. No. 139 of 1954) is a case decided by the Travancore-Cochin High Court, in which the validity of an order of the Government directing a teacher in a private school to refund excess salary drawn by him was questioned. It was held in that case that the liability to pay the salary of a teacher in a school under private management was on the management and that it was contractual. It was held in that case that the liability to pay the salary of a teacher in a school under private management was on the management and that it was contractual. In Krishnan Nambooripad v. The State (O.P. No. 176 of 1954) it was held that a teacher in a private school was not a servant of the Government, that the relation between himself and the manager of the school was purely contractual and that Art.226 could not be invoked for the vindication of any right flowing from such a relationship. Dasius v. The State (1956 K L. T. 238) is another decision of this court which held that the Eduction Code and the orders issued from time to time by the Government or the Department regarding schools had no statutory force and that infringement of the provisions of the Code or such orders could not be made the subject of judicial review. The petitioner must seek his remedies against the management of the school and not the Government. It may be that in view of the decision in O. P. No 123 the petitioner may get some relief but that is no ground for allowing this Original Petition which must be dismissed in the light of the decisions mentioned above. 7. In the result, O. P. No. 123 is allowed and the Respondents are directed to treat the school as an academic one entitled to the benefits under the P.S.S. Scheme. It may be open for the Respondents to withdraw the recognition of the school on proper grounds and this decision is not intended to curtail such right, but until that is done, the school has to be treated as an academic school which has acceded to the P. S. S. Scheme. O.P. No. 55 is dismissed with costs including Advocate's fee of Rs. 50 to Respondents 1 and 2 (one set only). O. P. No. 123 is allowed and the petitioner will get her costs including advocate's fees of Rs. 50 from the Respondents who will bear their costs. O.P. 123/56 Allowed. O.P. 55/56 Dismissed.