B. N. KIRPAL, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this Appeal is to the directions issued by the learned single Judge, who had allowed respondent no. 1s writ petition seeking grant in respect of salary of the nonteaching staff. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1, "a Trust" which runs a recognised school at Becharaji, had applied for grant in respect of non-teaching staff which consist of one clerk and one peon. Vide letter dated 4/06/1992, the district Primary Education Officer, Mehsana, informed the respondent that, there was no provision for appointment of cleric and peon in recognised private primary school, and therefore, the grant for that count is not admissible. This decision was challenged in the petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge had followed two decisions of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2269 of 1983 dated 4/12/1984 (Coram : S. B. Majmudar, J.) (as he then was) and Special Civil application No. 1363 of 1987 dated 2/03/1990 (Coram : A. P. Ravani, J.) and he directed the appellant to sanction and approve the salary of grant of non-teaching staff during the period 1/04/1990 onwards. ( 4 ) IN Appeal it has been submitted that such payment is not contemplated under the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949, as applicable to the State of Gujarat. ( 5 ) A private primary school is recognised in accordance with the provisions of Rule 106 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"), One of the conditions of recognition is, that the management of the private primary school shall be regulated by a legally constituted body registered under the Bombay Public trusts Act. 1950 OR under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. One of the benefits of recognition of a private school is that it is entitled to grantin- aid on an application being made. ( 6 ) THE amount of grant-in-aid is determined by Rule 115. 1950 OR under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. One of the benefits of recognition of a private school is that it is entitled to grantin- aid on an application being made. ( 6 ) THE amount of grant-in-aid is determined by Rule 115. Sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3), which are relevant in the present case, read as follows : "sub-rule (1) Normally the grant paid to an approved private School in any year is the grant paid for that year and shall be calculated on the number of pupils in average attendance in the School during the proceeding year: provided that - (i) grant to an approved private School during the first year of its existence shall be based on the number of pupils in average attendance in the School during the first half of the School year. Such grant shall not, however, exceed three-fourths of the estimated expenditure of the School of the pay of its teacher, during the year; and (ii) no grant to an approved School shall be paid in any year unless the average attendance of pupils is 25 and above during the year. Explanation:- In the case of two or more approved Schools conducted by an Association or Society, the average daily attendance shall be calculated by adding together the actual number of daily attendance of pupils of all the schools conducted by the Association or Society and dividing the total by the number of Schools so conducted. "sub-RULE (3) Subject to the instructions that may be issued by the Director from time to time educational bodies or associations conducting a number of approved schools shall be entitled to grant on overhead expenditure at three-fourths of their approved expenditure under that head. Note:- The following items of overhead expenditure are treated as approved expenditure: (1) Pay and allowance of the Administrative, Supervising, Clerical and inferior staff; (2) Office contingency; (3) Stipends to teachers under training at the rates approved by Government; (4) Cost of refresher courses for teachers in the employment of the educational bodies or associations; (5) Travelling allowance to teachers under training or for attending the refresher courses; (6) Pay and travelling allowance to relieving teachers; (7) Audit fees: (8) Premium on the insurance on the lives of the permanent teachers; (9) Contributions to the provident and insurance funds. The Administrative Officer shall have power to determine what is reasonable expenditure in each case with reference to the items mentioned in this note. " ( 7 ) THE contention on behalf of the appellant is, that the respondent trust is running only one school and therefore, the provisions of sub-rule (3) are not applicable. The submission is that the words conducting a number of approved schools in sub-rule (3) indicates that the provisions of the said subrule would apply only if a trust or an educational body or association conducts more than one school. Admittedly the respondent trust is running one school, and therefore, it is submitted, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of sub-rule (3.) of Rule 115. ( 8 ) IN our opinion, a plain reading of sub-rule (3) of Rule 115 leaves no manner of doubt that the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not correct. The language of sub-rule (3) is such that it refers to the educational bodies and associations in the plural, as such there is a reference to a number of approved schools in the said sub-rule. The said sub-rule means that all the approved schools run by all the educational bodies or associations shall be entitled to the grant of overhead expenditure, subject to the instructions which may be issued by the Director from time to time. The sub-rule does not provide that it will be applicable if each educational body or association conducts a number of approved schools. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, sub-rule (3) would mean that, the provisions of the same would be applicable only if a number of schools are run by one educational body, or if each educational body runs a number of schools. There is no warrant for adding the words only or each in sub-rule (3) and without admission of such words, the meaning to the said sub-rule which is sought to be quoted by the learned Counsel of the appellant cannot be there. ( 9 ) THE matter may be looked from another angle. The said subrule pertains to different types of overhead expenditures, for which grant is to be paid. ( 9 ) THE matter may be looked from another angle. The said subrule pertains to different types of overhead expenditures, for which grant is to be paid. The expenditure pertains, in the Notes No. (1) to (9), not only to the Administrative Staff but also refers to stipends to teachers, cost of refresher course of teachers, travelling allowance of teachers, audit fees, premium of insurance of teachers and what is important is, contribution to the Provident and Insurance funds. All the expenditures are relatable to teachers directly. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is accepted, the effect would be that, if an educational body runs more than one school then grant in respect of such overhead expenditure relatable to the teachers would be given, but such grant would not be given if an educational body is running only one school. Such an interpretation would clearly lead to discriminatory results, and all private primary educational institutions must be treated alike. There is no warrant for giving of grant, say - towards contribution to provident fund, in case of one school which, along with the another, is run by one educational body, but not to give similar grant where another school is run, singly by an educational body. An interpretation which would lead to discriminatory results has always to be avoided. When in the Rule reference was made to "educational bodies Or Associations", the said terms were in plural, it obviously follow that, grammatically, the language which had to be used in the sub-rule could only be in plural, i. e. , schools. If, for example, there were five different educational bodies and each one of them was running one school, then the said sub-rule (3) could only have been worded in the manner which it exists at present. The framers of the Rule must have known that, a number of educational bodies are running schools, and therefore, collectively, each school which is approved and is run by educational body would be entitled to the grant relatable to the overhead expenditure. It will be doing no violence to the language if the said sub-rule is interpreted in this manner, this will also result in the said sub-rule not being regarded as discriminatory. It will be doing no violence to the language if the said sub-rule is interpreted in this manner, this will also result in the said sub-rule not being regarded as discriminatory. ( 10 ) IT was then submitted that, sub-rule (3) contemplates direction being issued by the Director and in absence of such direction, no grant can be given, which is relatable to the overhead expenditure. We are unable to agree with this submission. The said sub-rule states that, subject to the instruction which may be issued by the Director from time to time, approved school shall be entitled to the grant on the overhead expenditure. The said sub-rule gives a right to a school to ask for the grant and this right flows from its Rule. The words subject to the instructions cannot mean that, in the absence of any instruction being issued this right cannot be exercised. The entitlement to the grant may be regulated by the instructions which may be issued by the Director from time to time but it is not possible to construe the said sub-section to mean that, it is only if instructions are issued that grant for overhead expenditure can be given. ( 11 ) IT is also submitted by Shri Pujari that there is no Rule which provides the manner by which the administrative staff can be recruited and therefore, no grant in respect thereto is contemplated. There is no merit in this submission. It is no doubt true that Rules have been framed with regard to the recruitment of the teachers, but in the absence of rule with regard to employment of administrative staff, the schools are not prohibited from employing the same. We may here notice that, the last portion of the Note to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 115 gives the administrative Officer the power to determine as to what is reasonable overhead expenditure in each case. The confirmation of this power does not mean that any approval has to be obtained before any member of the administrative staff is employed. ( 12 ) LASTLY, reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Tejram Parsuramji, 1991 3 SCC 11 . In that case the Tribunal had directed the Government to accord sanction to the school and also to regularise the teachers. ( 12 ) LASTLY, reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Tejram Parsuramji, 1991 3 SCC 11 . In that case the Tribunal had directed the Government to accord sanction to the school and also to regularise the teachers. It was held by the supreme Court that grant of Government sanction for regularising the services was a policy matter which involves financial burden and no court or Tribunal could compel the Government to accord such a sanction. The principle laid down in this case has no application here. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 115 itself contains the right of a recognised private primary school to get grant in respect of overhead expenditure mentioned therein. This was not the case with which the Supreme Court was concerned. In the present case there is a statutory recognition of the right of a private primary school to obtain grant and the Court can direct the Government to comply with its statutory obligation as contained in Rule 115. ( 13 ) AS already observed, the learned single Judge had while allowing the writ petition, followed the decisions of S. B. Majmudar, J. (as he then was) and A. P. Ravani, J. dealing with similar contention. The view which we are taking today is similar and we hereby affirm the said decisions of the two learned Judges. ( 14 ) IN the aforesaid reasons, this Appeal is dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs. No order on Civil Application. .