RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is presented by the appellant against the order of dismissal of Writ Petition no. 1543 of 1978 in which he had sought for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing respondent-1 or respondent-3 to consider his case for approval of his appointment as Assistant master in Kannada on the establishment of S. V. High School, Kuppelur, Ranebennur Taluk. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The appellant holds a Bachelors Degree of karnataka University with Sociology and Kannada as major and minor optional subjects respectively. During the academic year 1975 the the Management of Shri Basaveswara Vidya vardhaka Sangha, Kuppelur (respondent-4) invited applications for the post of a Kannada teacher on the establishment of the S. V. High School, Kuppelur. The Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code (shortly called as the code) selected the appellant for the post of Assistant Master in Kannada and Drawing and issued the appointment order (vide Annexure-A) dated 10-9-1975. Under the Code every appointment requires the approval of the Deputy Director concerned. Accordingly, respondent, 4 the management, sought the approval of the Deputy Director of the post offered to the appellant. The Deputy Director, by his order dated 16-10-1978 (Exhibit-B) refused to approve the appointment of the appellant, and the relevant portion of his order reads : "ref : Letter No. 181/76-77 dated 29/7/76. With reference to his letter on the subject mentioned above Headmaster informed as under regarding the approval of appointment made in School during 1975-76. (1) The appointment of Sri G. H. Umakant will be considered only after the production of original certificates. (2) The appointment of Shri S. S. Nagammanavar is rejected as he is not trained. (3) The appointment of Shri H. N. Patil is rejected since the advertisement is for Kannada Pandit (Kannada Major) and Shri H. N. Patil has Kannada Minor qualification. The service register and the original certificate of the above persons are transmitted herewith, the receipt of which should be acknowledged. " Against the said order the Management preferred an appeal to the Director of Public instructions. By a letter dated 10-10-1977 (Exhibit-C) the Joint Director informed the management that the appeal preferred by the Management had been rejected by the Director. " Against the said order the Management preferred an appeal to the Director of Public instructions. By a letter dated 10-10-1977 (Exhibit-C) the Joint Director informed the management that the appeal preferred by the Management had been rejected by the Director. Thereafter, the Management again requested the Director to reconsider and modify the order and approve the appointment of the appellant, through its letter dated 3-9-1977 (Exhibit-D), the relevant portion reads : "that in the case of Sri Shetty, the appointment of whom in Hosarithi High School has been approved by the Department on the strength of the circular cited above. Hence, there is no reason to reject (he appeal preferred by the Management in the case of Sri H. N. Patil, Assistant teacher (Kannada) in Vidyaranya High School, Kuppelur when the facts are one and the same in the cases. I would like to have an opportunity to quote one more example of whose appointment in lamington High School, Hubl. To add to the list recently D. P.. , Bangalore, has reconsidered the appeal preferred by order approving the appointment of Sri S. P. Devale as Assistant Teacher under his No. E7/ (a) C and T/70/76-77 dated 8. 8. 1977. " as the request of the Management was not accorded to, the Management addressed a communication on 15-11-1977 to the appellant (Exhibit-E) which reads : "as per Joint D.. P. Belgaum order No. 521/apt-129/76-77 even dated 2-8-1977 your proposal for the appointment of an Assistant Master (Kannada) is rejected by D. P.. , Bangalore. As per the instructions received from the Chairman, S. B. V. V. Sangha, Kuppelur, No. 169 dated 15-11-1977 you are given two months' time from this day. e. , 15-11-1977 to get your approval of the appointment, otherwise you will be relieved from your duties after 15th January, 1978. " as can be seen from the above communication the Management sought to terminate the appointment of the appellant solely on the ground that the proposal of the appellant for his appointment as Assistant Master in Kannada was rejected by the Director of Public Instructions, belgaum (vide Order No. 521/apt-129/76-77 dated 2-2-1977 ). Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner-appellant presented a Writ Petition requesting this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus directing respondent-1 or respondent-3 to consider his case for approval of his appointment. By the impugned order the Writ Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner-appellant presented a Writ Petition requesting this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus directing respondent-1 or respondent-3 to consider his case for approval of his appointment. By the impugned order the Writ Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has presented this Writ Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act, 1961. ( 3 ) THE only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that according to the relevant rules prescribing the conditions of eligibility for appointment of High school Teachers the minimum qualification required is Bachelor's Degree with the concerned subject as one of the optional subjects, but respondent-1 had refused to approve the appointment of the appellant on the ground that he had studied Kannada as minor optional subject and not as a major optional subject in the Degree level and, therefore, the order of respondent-1 not approving the appointment was arbitrary. ( 4 ) IN support of the contention that there was no condition that Kannada should be studied as one of the major optional subjects in the Degree level but it was sufficient if Kannada was studied as a minor optional subject for appointment as a Kannada teacher in High Schools the appellant has produced a copy of the letter addressed by the Management to the Director of Public Instructions (vide Exhibit-D) and the relevant portion is extracted above. In this letter the Management pointed out that the appointment of one Sri Shetty to Hosarithi High School had been approved by the Department and also of other two persons who had studied the concerned subject as minor subject. The appellant has also produced a copy of a Circular dated 26-8-1978 (vide annexure-G ). It reads : "copy OF THE CIRCULAR No. FD 174 SLB 78 DATED 26-8-1978 FROM THE government OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE addressed TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA. Sub : Appointment of Graduate teachers and Language teachers in Private Aided Secondary schools Clarification issued for regularising appointment already made it has come to the notice of the Government appointments made to the post of Graduate teachers and Language teachers (. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE addressed TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS IN KARNATAKA. Sub : Appointment of Graduate teachers and Language teachers in Private Aided Secondary schools Clarification issued for regularising appointment already made it has come to the notice of the Government appointments made to the post of Graduate teachers and Language teachers (. e. , Basha Pandit) by the private managements in Secondary Schools are in some cases not approved by the Department of Public Instructions on the ground that they have not studied the particular subjects as major subjects at the Degree level. Government have examined the rules applicable to the appointments made to the post of graduate teachers and language teachers in private aided High Schools rules under the grant-in-Aid Code do not specify that a subject teacher should have studied that subject as a major subject in the Degree examination. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules also indicate only a degree of a Recognised University, among other things, for appointments, and do not specify that the candidate having at Degree level should alone be appointed. The qualification of a major subject at Degree level may be desirable, but for that reason the appointments of Graduates made otherwise cannot be termed irregular uatil a mandatory Clause to that effect is incorporated in the relevant rules. Hence, it is clarified that for the present it is enough if the particular subject has been studied by the candidate at the Degree level as this would satisfy the rules in force for the purpose of appointments and, Government, therefore, hereby direct that all appointments made by the management of Private aided High Schools be reviewed accordingly and immediate action be taken to regularise the appointments already made wherever necessary until the rules are amended. Sd. A. HRITO under Secretary to Government of Karnataka, education and Youth Service Department. . . . " From the above letter it is clear that according to the rules there was no condition to the effect that a candidate to be appointed as a teacher in a particular subject must have studied that subject as a major optional subject in the Degree level. ( 5 ) WE have also looked into the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Education Department, and the relevant part of which is found at pages 253 and 254 of Cadre and Recruitment Rules, volume. ( 5 ) WE have also looked into the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Education Department, and the relevant part of which is found at pages 253 and 254 of Cadre and Recruitment Rules, volume. According to the said rules qualification prescribed for appointment as a teacher in a government High School is a Degree of a recognised University with the concerned subject as one of the optionals at the Degree level. There is no dispute that the same rules are being applied for appointments in Private Educational Institutions receiving Grant-in-Aid. Therefore, there can be no doubt, that under the rules, there was no condition that a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher on the establishment of a High School should have studied that particular subject as one of the major optional subjects in the Degree level. ( 6 ) THE next question that is for our consideration is whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued either to respondent-1 or to respondent-3 to consider the appointment of the appellant for approval. The learned Single Judge held that as provisions of the Code are not statutory provisions, they were not enforceable. This view is consistent with the earlier decisions. But, in this case the appellant-petitioner is not seeking enforcement of the Code. The question raised is that when he is eligible for appointment and the Managing Committee has selected him and appointed him as Kannada teacher of a High School, the Joint Director or the Director of Public instructions, as the case may be, cannot arbitrarily refuse the approval for such appointments and such a refusal on the part of the authority concerned would be violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. In view of Article 14 the Governmental authority cannot, in the matter of approving appointments, act arbitrarily. Therefore, whenever the authority is requested to accord the approval to the appointments, the authority can refuse to approve only for good and recorded reasons. If the approval is refused arbitrarily, giving untenable reasons which denies equality before law to the teacher concerned, a Writ can be issued to the concerned Officer of the department of Education to consider the question of approval of appointments in accordance with the conditions of eligibility excluding the untenable ground on which the approval was rejected. If the approval is refused arbitrarily, giving untenable reasons which denies equality before law to the teacher concerned, a Writ can be issued to the concerned Officer of the department of Education to consider the question of approval of appointments in accordance with the conditions of eligibility excluding the untenable ground on which the approval was rejected. ( 7 ) IN the case of Tikaram v. Mundikota Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. , AIR1984 SC 1621 , [1984 (49 )FLR297 ], 1984 (2 )SCALE182 , (1984 )4 SCC219 , [1985 ]1 SCR339 , 1984 (2 )SLJ319 (SC ), 1985 (17 )UJ47 (SC ) the question that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a Writ can be issued to the director of Education in respect of an appellate order made under the Code. The High Court of bombay dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner could not file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order made under the School Code. Reversing the said order the Supreme Court held that the High Court of Bombay was wrong in taking the aforesaid view and, as the petition was principally directed against the order passed in a quasi-judicial proceeding by the Director, though in a case arising under the School Code and since the Director had assumed a jurisdiction to review his own order not conferred on him, the appellant was entitled to maintain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) IN a receut decision in Manmohan Singh Jaitia v. Deputy Commissioner and Ors. , AIR1985 SC 364 , 1985 Lablc672 , (1985 )I LLJ514 SC , 1984 (2 )SCALE991 , 1984 Supp (1 ) SCC540 , [1985 ]2 SCR479 , 1985 (1 )SLJ90 (SC ), 1985 (17 )UJ411 (SC ) the Supreme Court has also held that a private educational institution receiving substantial financial grant from the Government falls within the definition of the word 'state' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. From this it follows that the refusal to approve the appointment of the appellant on an irrelevant ground amounts to denial of equal opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State and therefore violative of Article 16 of the constitution. From this it follows that the refusal to approve the appointment of the appellant on an irrelevant ground amounts to denial of equal opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State and therefore violative of Article 16 of the constitution. In this case such violation was not by the Management, but was by respondents 1 and 3 on account of denial of approval to the appointment of the appellant On this ground also the appellant is entitled to seek the issue of Writ of Mandamus to respondent-1 or respondent-3 to approve his appointment. ( 9 ) IT appears that, during the pendency of this appeal, respondent-4, Management, had appointed respondent-5 as a Kannada Pandit in the place of the appellant. If the appointment of the appellant had been approved by respondent-1 or respondent-3, he would have been entitled to continue in the said post and there was no question of the appointment of respondent-5 in his place. Therefore, the fact that respondent-5 has been appointed during the pendency of this appeal cannot be taken as a ground for denying the relief to the appellant. On the approval of appointment of the appellant by respondent-1 or respondent 3 in the light of this order, the appellant has got to be accommodated. But the respondents are at liberty to do so either in addition to or in supersession of the appointment of respondent -5. ( 10 ) ONE other question which requires to be considered by us is whether, if the appointment of the appellant is approved, he would be entitled to claim salary for the period during which he was kept out of service? In our opinion, as the appointment of the appellant was subject to approval either by respondent-1 or respondent-3 and they did not accord approval, whatever may be the reason, respondent-4 cannot be compelled to pay salary to the appellant, for the period during which he was kept out of employment. As stated above, respondent-5 has been appointed in the place of the appellant and respondent-5 has drawn salary, which is met out of State funds. In the circumstances, the relief which could be given to the appellant is that he would be entitled to continuity of service, periodical increments as if his service had not been terminated and to all other consequential benefits except the back salary. In the circumstances, the relief which could be given to the appellant is that he would be entitled to continuity of service, periodical increments as if his service had not been terminated and to all other consequential benefits except the back salary. ( 11 ) BEFORE concluding, it should be stated that the order in the appeal was dictated in open Court on 27-3-1986, but was not signed at the request of the respondents made after the order was dictated to the effect that they proposed to have the matter settled. Though sufficient time, that is, more than six months was taken, settlement was not reported. In the circumstances the matter was directed to be posted for 'for being spoken to'. No settlement is reported even now. ( 12 ) IN the result, we make the following order: (i) Writ Appeal is allowed. (ii) In reversal of the order made in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is allowed. (iii) Respondent No. 4 is directed to take the appellant back to duty forthwith as Kannada teacher on the establishment of S. V. High School, Kuppelur. (iv) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to approve the appointment of the appellant as Assistant master (Kannada) on the establishment of S. V. High School at Kuppelur. (v) The appellant shall be entitled to continuity of service and all the consequential benefits except the back salary.