JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners before us are the M.G.D. Girls School, Jaipur through its Principal and the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the said school. The school manages its own finances and does not receive any grant-in-aid from the State. It is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and prepares candidates to take examinations of the said Board. 2. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India arises in the following manner. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Indu Bala is admittedly employed as a teacher under the petitioners. Purporting to act under clauses 27, 28 and 29 of the M. G. D. Girls School Service Rules, the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the said school issued memorandum (Annexure 1) dated 25.08.1993 to Mrs. Indu Bala Shrivastava along with a statement of allegations, on the basis of which a domestic disciplinary enquiry was proposed to be held against said Smt. Indu Bala. Smt. Indu Bala filed objections Annexure II and took exception to the proposed disciplinary proceedings and contended that such an enquiry could be held only in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter 'the Rules'). However, later on, Mrs. Indu Bala inspected the relevant record and submitted her detailed reply on 29.09.1993 (Annexure IV). Not satisfied with the reply, the petitioners proceeded to go ahead in the matter of disciplinary enquiry against said Indu Bala and appointed one, Mahendra Surana, RAS as Enquiry Officer. Indu Bala took exception to proposed enquiry to be conducted by Shri Surana and reiterated her stand that an enquiry could be held only in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and not otherwise. She eventually took the matter by way of an appeal filed under section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Educational Institutions Act, 1989 [Sic Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989] (hereinafter the 'Act') before the Educational Tribunal, Rajasthan constituted under the provisions of the said Act. The appeal was opposed on behalf of the petitioners who inter-alia contended that M. G. D. School was not an aided school and hence the provisions of the said Rules were not attracted and the petitioners were well within their powers to proceed with the enquiry. 3. The appeal was opposed on behalf of the petitioners who inter-alia contended that M. G. D. School was not an aided school and hence the provisions of the said Rules were not attracted and the petitioners were well within their powers to proceed with the enquiry. 3. The Educational Tribunal by its order dated 09.12.1993 upheld the contention of Indu Bala and set aside the order by which Shri Mahendra Surana was appointed as Enquiry Officer and held that the petitioners could proceed with the enquiry only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and Rules and not otherwise. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenge the said order of the Educational Tribunal, through this writ petition. 4. Shri Prem Asopa filed his power on behalf of Indu Bala and put up appearance on 24.03.1994, when the writ petition was heard and admitted. Presumbly, looking to the far-reaching consequences which decision of the writ petition may have, notices were also ordered to be issued to the learned Advocate General, who has put in appearance in the matter in pursuance of the said notice. 5. Rajasthan Unaided Educational Institutions Employees Union (hereinafter the Union) claiming to be a representative Union of teachers of Unaided Educational Institutions moved an application dated 04.07.1994 through its President and Secretary to be allowed to be impleaded as a party to the writ petition. Likewise, Shri Prakash Chaturvedi, claiming to be president of the Rajasthan University Teachers Association (hereinafter 'the Association'), Jaipur moved an application to be impleaded as respondent to the writ petition. We allowed the applicant Union to intervene in the matter by order dated 15.07.1994. 6. The respondents have not filed any reply to the writ petitions and all concerned have argued the matter at length, issues involved being purely questions of law. 7. At this juncture, we may state that the learned Advocate General has supported the stand taken by the petitioners and has urged that provisions of the Rules do not apply to Unaided Schools like the petitioner-School. Respondent, Indu Bala and the two intervenors support the impugned judgment of the Educational Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 8. 7. At this juncture, we may state that the learned Advocate General has supported the stand taken by the petitioners and has urged that provisions of the Rules do not apply to Unaided Schools like the petitioner-School. Respondent, Indu Bala and the two intervenors support the impugned judgment of the Educational Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 8. Hence, the short controversy before us is whether the petitioners are within their jurisdiction to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the Service Rules of the petitioners and the Tribunal fell in error in quashing the appointment of Shri Mahendra Surana as an enquiry officer and further fell in error in holding that the enquiry could be proceeded with only in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and not otherwise. 9. Rajasthan has a big network of educational institutions, both run by the Government as well as by private bodies. Educational institutions run by the Government have a fairly well knit organisations. There is a Directorate of College Education to supervise and manage the affairs of Government Colleges. Likewise, there is a Directorate of Secondary & Primary Education to over-see and manage the affairs of Government Schools. There is also a Directorate of Technical Education to regulate and control technical education is the State. Likewise, there is a Directorate of Sanskrit Education to control the affairs of .Government institutions imparting Sanskrit Education. Besides, there are definite service rules, disciplinary control rules and pay scales rationalisation Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. However, the Non-Government educational institutions were not so well organised and controlled. Each private Educational Institution had its own management, its own service rules and its own pay scales. There was no uniformity in the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings against the teachers and other employees serving under the private educational institutions. Of-course, there existed grant-in-aid rules, which to certain extent controlled the privately owned educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State. But, these were executive rules and did not have any statutory backing. There was a lot of clamour by various employees unions from private sector to enact a law to organise and control the functioning of the private educational institutions. Of-course, there existed grant-in-aid rules, which to certain extent controlled the privately owned educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State. But, these were executive rules and did not have any statutory backing. There was a lot of clamour by various employees unions from private sector to enact a law to organise and control the functioning of the private educational institutions. The Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Act, 1989 was enacted to fill this long felt lacuna with a. view 'to provide for better organisation and development of education in the Non-Government educational institutions in the State of Rajasthan', as has been stated in the preamble of the Act.9A. At this juncture, we may state that the petitioners do not challenge the right of the State to regulate functioning of private i.e. non-Government education institutions by enacting suitable law. That such a regulatory measure could be enacted by the State legislature has been frankly and candidly conceded by learned counsel for the petitioners.9B. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitutions of India embraces within its ambit right to receive education. Such a right to receive education is implicit in and flows from right to life. It is also an integral component of the right to liberty. Unikrishnan J. P. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178 . Within its economic constraints, the State is bound to provide educational facilities to the citizens. Citizens have a right to run private educational institutions because the State due to its financial limitations, may not be in a position to discharge its constitutional obligations wholly. But, the right to establish an educational institution does not carry with it, as a necessary concomitant a right to recognition or a right to receive grant-in-aid. Grant of aid or conferment of recognition is the prerogative of the State and the State may control such rights by proper regulatory measures, statutory or executive. Affiliation and recognition is the very life blood of a private educational institution and no private educational institution can survive without same. Recognised/affiliated private institutions supplement the functions of the State in the filed of education. Authorities entitled to grant recognition/affiliation are entitled to insist upon observance of such conditions as are appropriate to ensure education of requisite standard (ibid).9C. In Bharat Sevashram Sangh Vs. Recognised/affiliated private institutions supplement the functions of the State in the filed of education. Authorities entitled to grant recognition/affiliation are entitled to insist upon observance of such conditions as are appropriate to ensure education of requisite standard (ibid).9C. In Bharat Sevashram Sangh Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 494 , it was recognised by the Apex Court that under the scheme of grant-in-aid, it was not obligatory for a particular private educational institutions to accept grant-in-aid from the State but that would not make any difference in so far as the power of the State to regulate the imparting of education by private schools is concerned, in which the entire society and the parents of the children are vitally interested. It was also recognised that these schools employ large number of teachers. The protection of their interests in equally important.9D. In Miss A. Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu & others, AIR 1988 SC 1700 , the Apex Court recognised that teachers are exploited by unscruplous managements. In this context, it recognised the need for a suitable regulatory measure. It observed- "11. We may at this stage observe that teachers as a class cannot be denied the benefits of social justice. We are aware of the several methods adopted by unscrupulous managements to exploit them by imposing on them injust conditions of service. In order to do justice to them it is necessary to provide for an appropriate machinery so that teachers may secure what is rightly due to them. In a number of States in India laws have been passed for enquiring into the validity of illegal and unjust terminations of services of teachers by providing for appointment of judicial tribunals to decide such cases. We are told that in the State of Goa, there is no such Act in force. If it is so, it is time that the State of Goa takes necessary steps to bring into force an appropriate legislation providing for adjudication of disputes between teachers and the Managements of the educational institutions. We hope that this lacuna in the legislative are will be filled up soon." This power of the State to regulate the affairs of non-Government Educational institutions was recognised as back as in The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society Vs. We hope that this lacuna in the legislative are will be filled up soon." This power of the State to regulate the affairs of non-Government Educational institutions was recognised as back as in The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389 , wherein it was held that measures which will regulate the qualification and appointment of teachers and conditions of their employment are germane to affiliation and recognition. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the State can inter alia regulate the conditions of employment including disciplinary proceedings against them and this power of the State cannot be questioned at all. 10. The scheme of the Act shows that non-Government Educational Institutions, Recognised Institutions and Aided Institutions stand on distinct footing under the Act. They do not include in their fold institutions run by the Government, Central or State or by any University or Local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government. Expression 'Non-Govt. Education Institution' has been defined in Section 2(p) of the Act and means any college, school, training institution or any other institution, by whatever name designated established and run with the object of imparting education or preparing or training students for obtaining any certificate, degree, diploma or any academic distinction recognised by the State or Central Government or functioning for the educational, cultural or physical development of the people in the State and which is neither owned nor managed by the State or Central Government or by any University or Local authority or other authority owned or controlled by the State or Central Government. 11. 'Recognised Institution' has been defined under Section 11(q) of the Act to mean a Non-Government Educational Institution affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board, Director of Education or any other authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf. 12. 'Aid' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean any aid granted to a recognised educational institution by the State Government. Expression 'aided institution' has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act to mean a recognised institution which is receiving aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government. The aforesaid provisions go to show that the distinction between aided institutions, recognised institutions and Non-Govt. Education Institution is real & genuine. Expression 'aided institution' has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Act to mean a recognised institution which is receiving aid in the form of maintenance grant from the State Government. The aforesaid provisions go to show that the distinction between aided institutions, recognised institutions and Non-Govt. Education Institution is real & genuine. The three expressions do not cover the same ground and are not synonymous but cover distinct and separate grounds. Of-course, there may be some over-lapping. Every 'aided institution' has to be a 'recognised institution' but the reverse is not necessarily true. 13. 'Board' in the context of the aforesaid provisions and other provisions of the Act has been defined to mean the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and also includes the council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations. 14. Section 16(1) of the Act inter-alia deals with power of the State Govt. to regulate the terms & conditions of employment of the employees of the aided institutions in the State. Sub-section (2) of this section mandates that every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. It is significant that sub-section (1) of Section 11 restricts its operation to the employees of the aided institutions and the recognised institutions are not amenable to the regulatory jurisdictions of this sub-section. To bring out this point in proper focus, we may reproduce section 16 of the Act which reads as follows : "16. Power of the State Government to regulate the terms and conditions of employment. To bring out this point in proper focus, we may reproduce section 16 of the Act which reads as follows : "16. Power of the State Government to regulate the terms and conditions of employment. (1) The State Government may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service, including conditions relating to qualifications, pay, gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of leave, conduct and discipline, of persons appointed as employees of aided institution in the State : Provided that the rights and benefits accruing to an employee of an existing institution under the grant-in-aid rules in force at the commencement of this Act shall not be varied to the disadvantage of such employee : Provided further that every such employee shall be entitled to opt for such terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him immediately before the comencement of this Act: Provided also that, irrespective of the age of retirement prescribed, action may be taken for compulsory retirement of such an employee after completion of 25 years of service or on attainment of the age of 50 years whichever is earlier, in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. (2) Every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund for the benefit of its employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and contribute to such fund and pay interest on the deposited amount at such rate as may be prescribed from time to time." (emphasis supplied)A bare perusal of this section would bear out what we have observed above. To our mind, the distinction indicated in the provisions of this section relating to employees of aided institutions and recognised institutions, appears to be deliberate and intentional and the classification is reasonable and fair. Aided institutions derive their financial sustenance from the State and it is but just and proper that the Government exercise its regulatory jurisdiction as indicated by this Section over the employees of the aided institutions. Non-interference in such matters, as covered by sub-section (1) of this section, so far employees of other recognised institutions, other than aided institutions are concerned, appears to be reasonable and just. 15. Non-interference in such matters, as covered by sub-section (1) of this section, so far employees of other recognised institutions, other than aided institutions are concerned, appears to be reasonable and just. 15. Section 11 of the Act deals with recruitment of employees in recognised institutions and mandates that recruitment of employees in a recognised institution shall be made either after open advertisement in a local daily news papers or from amongst the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange in the manner as may be prescribed. This section ensures that there are no surreptitious appointments and openness is ensured in appointments; openness in selections being an indicia of fairness. 16. Section 18 of the Act deals with removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. This section reads as follows : "18. Removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of employees. Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, no employee of a recognised institution shall be removed, dismissed or reduced in rank unless he has been given by the management a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken : Provided that no final order in this regard shall be passed unless prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained Provided further that this section shall not apply, (i) to a person who is dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where it is not particable or expedient to give that employee an opportunity of showing cause, the consent of Director of Education has been obtained in writing before the action is taken, or (iii) where the managing committee is of unanimous opinion that the services of an employee cannot be continued without prejudice to the interest of the institution the services of such employee are terminated after giving him six months notice or salary in lieu thereof and the consent of the Director of Education is obtained in writing." This section controls the powers of the management of a recognised institution so far as imposition of major penalties of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank are concerned. Two major safeguards have been introduced by this Section before such a major penalty is imposed. Two major safeguards have been introduced by this Section before such a major penalty is imposed. The first requirement is that a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken has been given to the employee concerned and secondly, prior approval of the Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has been obtained. The power to be exercised under this Section is subject to the provisions of any rules that may be made in this behalf by the rules making authority. 17. Now, we may refer to Section 43 of the Act which deals with powers to make rules of the State Government. This section reads as follows : "43. Power to make rules.-(1) The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing powers, such rules may provide for, (a) the terms and conditions for the grant of recognition to non-government educational institutions; (b) the maintenance of recognised institutions; (c) the giving of grants-in-aid to recognised institutions; (d) the levy, regulation and collection of fees in recognised institutions; (e) regulating rates of fee in recognised institutions; (f) regulating admissions to recognised institutions which are receiving out of State funds by making special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; (g) the manner in which accounts, registers or records shall be maintained in aided institutions and the authority responsible for such maintenance; (h) the submission of returns, statements, reports and accounts by Secretaries of the managing committees of recognised institutions; (i) the inspection of recognised institutions and the officer by whom inspection shall be done; (j) the mode of keeping and auditing of accounts of recognised institutions; (k) the standards of education and courses of study; and (i) all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed. (3) All rules made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after they are so made, before the House of the State Legislature, while it is in session, for a period of not less than fourteen days which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions and, if before the expiry of the session which they are so laid or of the session immediately following, the house of the State Legislature makes any modification in any of such rules or resolves that any such rule should not be made, such rules shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity or anything previously done thereunder." This is an enabling section empowering the State Government to make rules. It is not obligatory for the State Government to frame rules for each and every subject under the Act. Rules framed under statute govern only such matters for which provision is made under it. 18. It is to be remembered that Rules have to be consistent with the statutory provisions and they neither over-ride the substantive provisions of the Act, nor do they enlarge the scope of such substantive provisions. Likewise, they cannot curtail the scope of a statutory provision. Rules have to be read in-a manner that they harmonise with the provisions of the Act. An interpretation, which leads to inconsistency in the provision of the Act and the Rules have to be avoided. In any given case, it cannot be easily inferred that Rules framed are inconsistent with the statutory provisions. If there is any seeming inconsistency between the Rules and the provisions of the Act, the Court is bound to accept any interpretation which resolves anomalies and harmonises the seemingly conflicting provisions. 19. In Central Bank of India Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 12 it was held by the Apex court that a statutory rule cannot enlarge the meaning of the section; if a rule goes beyond what the section contemplates, the rule must yield to the statute. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC 751 , it was held that the rules must be so interpretated as to be consistent with the provisions of the statute. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC 751 , it was held that the rules must be so interpretated as to be consistent with the provisions of the statute. In this very case, it was held that the rules made under a statute must be treated for all purposes of construction as if they were contained in the Act, itself. In B.K. Garad Vs. Nasik Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 192 , it was held that if there was any conflict between a statute and the subordinate legislation, the statute prevails over the subordinate legislation and the subordinate legislation if not in conformity with the statute, the same has to be ignored with a view to give effect to the statutory provision. Thus, the principles are well settled and we are required to make harmonious construction of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 20. Now, we may deal with the Rules, which govern the case in hand. In rule 2(d), Board has been defined to mean the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. This provision does not mean and cannot be construed to mean that it in any manner, curtails the provisions of the Act. It simply means that so far as the Rules are concerned, they are meant to govern matters specifically dealt thereunder. 'Recognised Institution' in these Rules has been defined to mean a non-Government Education Institution affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board, Director of Education or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Director of Education in this behalf. A combined reading of the two Rules would go to show that these rules apply, not to all recognised institutions as defined in the Act, but only to such recognised institutions, which are affiliated to any University or recognised by the Board as defined above or by the Director of Education etc. Read in this way, there does not appear to be any in consistency between the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Rules. 21. Contrarily, it appears that the Rule making authority intended to confine the operation of the Rule only to a limited category of recognised institutions, as defined in Rule 2(s)read with Rule 2(d) of the Rules. 21. Contrarily, it appears that the Rule making authority intended to confine the operation of the Rule only to a limited category of recognised institutions, as defined in Rule 2(s)read with Rule 2(d) of the Rules. When it is so, the Rules can have no application to recognised institutions, not receiving any grant in aid from the State and not affiliated to any Board or University in the State of Rajasthan. Section 18 of the Act, alone unfettered by the aforesaid Rules shall govern the disciplinary proceedings of the employees of the petitioners and the petitioners are not obliged to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 39 of the Rules. 22. In this context, it was contended on behalf of the respondent-employee and the intervenors that employees of all recognised schools form one group and hence this interpretation would lead to hostile discrimination. On the face of it, the argument appears to be plausible and attractive. But, on deeper scrutiny, we find that the argument is devoid of merit. Principle of equality of treatment applies only amongst equals and not amongst unequals. Employees of unaided schools form a class apart from the employees of aided institutions. In aided institutions, the State finances the institutions to substantial extent and hence may insist that a detailed procedure of enquiry may be adhered to before any action is taken against an errant employee of such an institution. Unaided institutions do not receive any such financial assistance. Hence, they stand on a different footing. 23. We do not mean to say that the Government could not have made rules to cover disciplinary matters against employees of unaided recognised schools. It could have definitely done so and the employees of petitioners could have been covered under the Rules. But, as frankly and candidly conceded by learned Advocate General, the rule making authority, while framing the Rules, in question intentionally made a departure and restricted the operation of the Rules to aided institutions and recognised institutions as defined in the Rules. The Rules are not violative of the provisions of the Act, nor are they violative of the equality clauses of the Constitution of India. By framing the Rules, the Rule making authority, itself, restricted the operation of the Rules to specified categories of institutions and not to all institutions covered by the Act. The Rules are not violative of the provisions of the Act, nor are they violative of the equality clauses of the Constitution of India. By framing the Rules, the Rule making authority, itself, restricted the operation of the Rules to specified categories of institutions and not to all institutions covered by the Act. We may clarify that it would be in the wisdom of the Rule making authority to frame the Rules in a manner so as to make them applicable to all the institutions covered by the Act, if it so chooses. 24. In the aforesaid premises, we find that the learned Education Tribunal fell in error in holding that the enquiry against respondent Smt. Indubala could be made only in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules, 1993 and not in accordance with with clauses 27, 28 & 29 of the MGD Girls School Service Rules. It also fell in error in holding that the appointment of Shri Mahendra Surana, RAS, as inquiry officer was bad. We therefore accept the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the learned Educational Tribunal dated 09.12.1993. Shri Mahendra Surana, Inquiry Officer shall be entitled to proceed against to proceed against Smt. Indu Bala in accordance with clauses 27, 28 & 29 of the MGD School Service Rules, keeping in view provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which lay down important safeguards with regard to employees. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Accepted. *******