Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay salary to petitioners No. 3 to 14 who are said to be working as peons in different primary-cum-middle Sanskrit schools of Supaul District. 2. As per the statement made in the writ application petitioners No. 3 to 14 had been appointed as peons in non-government Sanskrit schools situated in the district of Supaul by the respective Managing Committees. It is stated that these schools were granted recognition by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1985 being out of 205 such schools enumerated in the Education Departments resolution dated 23rd March, 1985. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite grant of recognition to the aforesaid schools, the State Government is not permitting the respondent-Sanksrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board only) to release the salary of the petitioners as a grant to those schools. It also appears from the record of the case that pursuant to representations of the petitioners and similarly situated other persons, the Secretary of the Board under his letter dated 17.8.1988 (Annexure 3) had requested the State Government to release the funds for the above purpose. It also appears that the Secretary of the Board without waiting for any Government sanction in this regard of its own issued letter No. 5490 to the respective schools asking details regarding appointment of peons with an intention to pay their salary. Subsequent thereto the Board again requested the Government to release the funds for meeting the salary of the peons. Thereupon the Government under its letters dated 27.2.1991 and 13.10.1992 (Annexures 1 and5, respectively) strongly repudiated the action of the Board with a specific direction that no aid by way of salary to the peons should be allowed by the Board in respect of the aforesaid 205 Sanskrit schools. 4. Thereupon the Government under its letters dated 27.2.1991 and 13.10.1992 (Annexures 1 and5, respectively) strongly repudiated the action of the Board with a specific direction that no aid by way of salary to the peons should be allowed by the Board in respect of the aforesaid 205 Sanskrit schools. 4. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the action of the State Government primarily on two grounds, i.e. (i) under Sec. 14 of the Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981 (Act 31 of 1982), (hereinafter referred to as the Act only), the Board is obliged to pay salary and allowances to teachers and non-teaching staff of recognised Sanskrit schools and the State Government has no authority to restrain the Board from doing so, and, (ii) non-grant of salary of the peons to schools recognised with effect from 1.1.1985 is arbitrary and discriminatory since such salaries are paid to the peons of schools which were granted recognition prior to 1.1.1985. 5. To appreciate the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, it is better to first refer to the relevant provisions of the Act which are being quoted hereunder: 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-. (a) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) "prescribed" means prescribed by the rules made under this Act; (f) ... (g) ... (h)... (j) ... (k) "RECOGNISED" means recognised by the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board; and (l) ... 6. Powers and functions of the Board.-(1) It shall be the duty of the Board to advise the State Government on all matters relating to Sanskrit Education upto the Madhyama Standard. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations and rules made thereunder, the Board shall have the power to direct, supervise and control Sanskrit Education up to Madhyama Standard in the State and in particular have the following powers- (a) To grant recognition to Sanskrit Schools and Tols up to Madhayam Standard, with the prior approval of the State Government, and within the number fixed by the State Government, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf. (b) ... 14. (b) ... 14. Application of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Fund, The Bihar Sanskrit Education Fund shall, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government be applicable to the following objects: (a) Payment of salaries and allowances to teachers and non-teaching staff of recognised Sanskrit Schools and Tools in the manner prescribed by the State Government. (b)... 6. A combined reading of the above provisions will show that the Sanskrit Education Fund created under the provisions of the Act can be utilised, inter alia for payment of salaries and allowances to teachers and non-teaching staff of recognised Sanskrit schools in the manner and subject to the Rules made in this regard by the State Government. But the schools which can be favoured with such payment can be only such schools which have been granted recognition by the Board in accordance with the Rules made by the State Government in this regard. [Refer Sec. 6(2)(a) read with Sec. 2(k).] 7. Admittedly no Rules have been made by the State Government under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Board had neither any authority to grant recognition to any Sanskrit school nor in fact it was so granted to any of the schools in question. This aspect of law inrelation to Sanskrit schools have been considered in detail by a Bench of this Court in the case of R.N.P.S.P.S. Balika Vidyalaya V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1993 (2) PUR 469. Therefore, even if the provision of Sec. 14 of the Act be read as a mandate to grant salaries to non-teaching staff of the recognised Sanskrit schools still it is of no avail to the petitioners because neither the said schools had been granted recognition under the Act nor any rules in this regard have been framed by the State Government 8. So far as the grant of recognition by the State Government under the resolution dated 23rd May, 1985 to 205 non-government Sanskrit schools is concerned, it can at best be taken as an executive act of the Government whereby the said 205 schools have been recognised for a limited purpose of granting aid to these schools. The term of this resolution clearly spells out that the Government will be granting aid only in respect of specified teachers unit of the said schools. The term of this resolution clearly spells out that the Government will be granting aid only in respect of specified teachers unit of the said schools. Under the said resolution the Government had not undertaken any further financial liability of giving any aid to meet the salaries of non-teaching staff also. Therefore, under the said resolution granting recognition to the schools, the petitioners No. 3 to 14 cannot by any claim against the Government for disbursement of any amount against their salaries which is otherwise payable by the respective Managing Committees of the non-government schools in which they are claiming to be serving. 9. So far as the plea of hostile the discrimination between the schools which were recognised for granting aid prior to 1.1.1985 and those recognised for such grants on or after 1.1.1985 is concerned. In my opinion, the two groups of schools form entirely different classes based on intelligible basis. Moreover, grant of aids to the schools is a privilege. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right except in cassis of clear discrimination. Such grants apart from the necessity of the schools, are also based on availability of funds and resources with the Government. While granting such aids the Government is entitled to review its policy from time to time keeping in view the attending circumstances and its financial resources. If on and after a particular date the Government finds it difficult to grant aids to (he institutions either wholly or partially. The Court cannot issue mandamus against the Government for granting aid to a particular extent. So long the action of the Government is not found discriminatory or arbitrary no judicial interference is called for. In the present case, in my opinion, the impugned decision and action of the Government is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ application is accordingly dismissed but without costs. 11. Gurusharan Sharma, J. I agree.