Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.5.93 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge directed the respondent-appellant State of Rajasthan to modify the Grant-in-aid Rules, 1963 and extend the benefit of the order dated 9.2.93 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 of 1992 (Prakash Chaturved vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) to the tea- chers and the employees represented by the petitioner Sahakari Sahayata Prapt Shikshan Sansthan Shikshak and Karamchari Sangh, Raj. Jodhpur (for short, `the petitioner Sangh/Association). (2). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that (i) when the judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 27.5.93, State Governme nt had already enacted the Rajasthan Non-government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 which came into force with effect from 1.1.1993 and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 43 of the Act, 1989, the Rules were, also, framed which were made applicable on 18-2-1993. Though the Act and the Rules were applicable to the employees of the Government-aided Schools when the matter was decided by the learned Single Judge but still the learned Single Judge pronounced the judgment on the basis of the judgment rendered in Prakash Chaturvedis case completely ignoring the provisions of the Act and the Rules which govern the ser- vice conditions of the members of the petitioner Sangh; (ii) when the Act has been enacted and enforced, the Rules were framed and the Supreme Court had already decided the appeals filed by the State against the two Division Bench decisions, such direction could not have been given while deciding the writ petition on 27-5-1993 over-looking the judgment, the Act and the Rules; and (iii) the Courts are not expected to give direction to the Legislature or the Government to frame particular Rules or the law. (3). (3). Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that (i) the three judgments passed by the High Court in the same matter became final and, therefore, they cannot, now, be assailed by the State and the Special Leave to Appeals before the Supreme Court were only in the matters of execution; (ii) the Act and the Rules framed by the Legislature were not given retrospective effect and as such they are not applicable to the present case; (iii) the Act and the Rules framed by the State Government cannot take away the vested rights of the members of the petitioner-respondent association accrued to them by way of three judgments of this Court; (iv) the judgments of the Courts cannot be put at a naught by the Legislature by making a law; and (v) the Grant-in-aid Rules, 1963 are purely of administrative in nature and are not legislative in character and, therefore, the Court can direct the State Government to amend these instructions in order to give relief to the employees working in the Government-aided educational institutions to treat them at par and give them the same pay and allowances and make applicable the same service conditions to them which are admissible and governing the teachers appointed in the government educationaly institutions. (4). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Before considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we would like to consider the chronology of events which gave rise to the present litigation. (4). Petitioner-respondent Sahakari Sahayata Prapt Shikshan Sansthan Shikshak and Karamchari Sangh, Rajasthan, Jodhpur filed this writ petition, which is sixth in the series, to ventilate the problems of the teachers and the employees working in the Government Aided Educational Institutions and prayed that the State Government may be directed to amend the Grant-in-aid Rules, 1963 so that the members of the petitioner association may get house rent allowance, city allowance, State Insurance benefits, leave encashment benefits, loan and advance benefits, selection grade benefits, medical aid, pensionary benefits like pension, gratuity etc. at the same rate at which the teachers and the employees of the Government Educational Institutions are getting them. (5). at the same rate at which the teachers and the employees of the Government Educational Institutions are getting them. (5). The first writ petition D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 443 of 1987 in the series was filed by the Rajasthan Universities and College Teachers Association for seeking the directions against the respondents for the grant of similar allowances and the benefits to the teachers of the Government-aided Colleges as are being given to the employees of the similar cadre working in the government colleges. The writ petition filed by the aforesaid association was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 16-12-87. While allowing the writ petition, the Division Bench held that:– ``The teachers of the colleges receiving grant-in-aid are entitled to the same pay and the allowances and service conditions etc. as are admissible to the persons employed in the government colleges. It is expected that the Government will try its level best to see that such legislation governing the non-governmental educational institutions is enacted at an early date. Though during the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government introduced the Rajasthan Non-governmental Educational Institutions Bill, 1986 in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly which was pending for screening before the Select Committee of the House but the Bill did not take the shape of the Act and the writ petition was decided. (6). One Shri Prakash Chaturvedi filed second writ petition bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1988 (Prakash Chaturvedi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) for the execution of the aforesaid judgment. This writ petition was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 30-9-88 with the following observations:– ``In view of our earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 443/87 dated 16-12-87, wherein this Court had held that the teachers of the colleges receiving grant-in-aid are entitled to the same pay and allowances and service conditions etc. as are admissible to the persons employed in government colleges. We are inclined to pass an interim order that the teachers of the government aided colleges shall be paid the same pay and allowances as are admissible to the persons employed in Government Colleges from 1st October, 1988. as are admissible to the persons employed in government colleges. We are inclined to pass an interim order that the teachers of the government aided colleges shall be paid the same pay and allowances as are admissible to the persons employed in Government Colleges from 1st October, 1988. Before parting with the order, we shall like to express our displeasure that inspite of the order of this Court dated 16-12-87, the Government has failed, in the budget session, to bring legislation on the subject, and as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the government has no intention to bring out legislation even in this current au- tumn session. We still expect that the government will reconsider the matter and try to get this legislation passed in the current autumn session, if possible. The State, aggrieved with the judgment, filed Special Leave Petitions (S.L.Ps.) before Honble the Supreme Court. (6). The petitioner Sangh, also, filed writ petition for the grant of parity of pay and other service benefits at par to the members who are working in the government-aided schools with the employees working in the government schools. That writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1647 of 1989 and was allowed by Honble Mehta, J. at Jaipur Bench on 4-1-91 with the following obser- vations:– ``In the result, the writ petition is accepted to this extent that the administrative rules, for Grant-in-aid Rules, 1963, may be modified and the condition should be added therein that the institutions getting grant-in-aid will have to provide atleast equal facilities in the matter of house rent, city allowance, State Insurance, leave encashment, loans and advances, dearness allowances, selection grades, medical facilities and retirement benefits, i.e., gratuity, pension etc. at the same rate which the teachers and the employees of the government schools are getting. If the aided institutions do not give the afore-men tioned undertakings then the State Government will not provide them the facilities of grant-in-aid. Since the judgments delivered by the two Division Benches were not complied with, Shri Prakash Chaturvedi again filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5735 of 1990. If the aided institutions do not give the afore-men tioned undertakings then the State Government will not provide them the facilities of grant-in-aid. Since the judgments delivered by the two Division Benches were not complied with, Shri Prakash Chaturvedi again filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5735 of 1990. That writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30-1-91 with the following observations:– `` We, therefore, allow this writ petition which as aforesaid is third in series in respect of laying down service conditions of the teaching staff of the aided non-governmental education institutions. So far as the teaching staff of the non-governmental aided educational institutions are concerned we direct the State Government, Chief Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Director of College Education and others to comply with the orders of this Court dated 19th December, 1988 as soon as possible but in no case later than six months and make a co- mpliance report to this Court and we direct the non-petitioners to pay Rs. 5000/- as costs. (7). The State filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 30-1-91. Both the Special Leave Petitions, i.e., S.L.P. No. 89254 of 1989 (against the order dated 19-12-88 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1988 and S.L.P. No. 13186 of 1990 (against the judgment dated 30.1.91 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5739 of 1992) came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court on 19-2- 93 and the Supreme Court disposed of both these Special Leave Petitions and made the following order:– ``Since the State of Rajasthan has enacted the Rajasthan Non- govern ment Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and has fixed January 1, 1993 as the appointed date for its commencement by virtue of a Notification dated December 15, 1992, the direction of the High Court to legislate stands carried out. This by itself would be enough to dispose of this petition without saying anything further. Yet our attention has been invited to some stray sentences in the judgment under appeal wherefrom an impression can be gathered that the judgment was meant to cover cases of the staff of recognised but unaided institutions also. We deem it necessary to clarify that the judgment under appeal is meant only to cover staff of the aided institutions and this view is on the basis of close scrutiny of the judgment. We deem it necessary to clarify that the judgment under appeal is meant only to cover staff of the aided institutions and this view is on the basis of close scrutiny of the judgment. With these observations, the special leave petitions are disposed of. (8). The judgment dated 4-1-91 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1647 of 1989 filed by the petitioner association was not complied with, therefore, Shri Prakash Chaturvedi again filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 of 1992 for the enforcement of the judgment dated 4-1-91. The writ petition filed by Prakash Chaturvedi was allowed by the learned Single Judge (Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal) at Jaipur Bench on 9-2-93 with the following observations:– ``Under these circumstances, I allow the writ petition and again direct the respondent to modify the Grant-in-aid Rules,1963. In these rules, conditions be added for giving atleast equal facilities in the matter of house rent, city allowance, State Insurance, leave encashment, loans and advances, dearness allowance, selection grades, medical facilities and all retiremental benefits i.e., gratuity, pension etc. to the teachers and employees of aided schools at the same rate which the teachers and employees of the government school are getting. If the aided institutions do not give the aforementioned benefits to its teachers and employees then the State Government will not provide them the facilities of Grant-in-aid Rules. I further direct the respondents to amend the rules as mentioned abo- ve within a period of six months from today and compliance report should be submitted to this Court. (9). The writ petition filed by the petitioners Sangh was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 27-5-93 and the respondents were directed to extend the benefit of the order dated 9-2-93 to the employees who are represented by the petitioner Sangh. It is against this judgment that the State has filed this appeal. (10). (9). The writ petition filed by the petitioners Sangh was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 27-5-93 and the respondents were directed to extend the benefit of the order dated 9-2-93 to the employees who are represented by the petitioner Sangh. It is against this judgment that the State has filed this appeal. (10). The first contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is that the day when the judgment was delivered on 27-5-93, the State had already enacted the Act, namely, the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (Act No. 19 of 1989) which came into force with effect from 1-1-93 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 43 of the Act, the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 were, also, framed but inspite of this fact the leaned Single Judge ignored the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19-2-93 in S.L.Ps. and relied upon the judgment dated 9-2-93 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 of 1992. (11). Section 16 of the Act deals with the powers of the State Government to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service including the conditions relating to the qualification, age gratuity, insurance, age of retirement, entitlement of the leave, conduct and discipline of persons appointed as the employees of the government aided educational institutions in the State. Sub- rule (2) of rule 16 provides that every recognised institution shall constitute a provident fund scheme for the benefit of its employee in such a manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and contribute to such fund and pay interest on such amount at such rate as may be prescribed from time to time. Section 17 of the Act deals with the recruitment of the employees in the recognised institutions. Section 18 deals with the removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of such employees. Chapter V of the Rules deals with the general conditions of service of the employees wor- king in the government aided educational institutions. (11). The petitioner did not challenge the validity of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Section 18 deals with the removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of such employees. Chapter V of the Rules deals with the general conditions of service of the employees wor- king in the government aided educational institutions. (11). The petitioner did not challenge the validity of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The learned Single Judge, without considering the provisions of the Act and the Rules decided the writ petition relying upon the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 of 1991 (Prakash Cha- turvedi vs. State of Rajasthan and others-decided on 9-2-93). The learned Single Judge, also, did not take into consideration the order dated 19-2-93 passed by the Supreme Court in the two Special Leave Petitions which arose out of the two judgments dated 19-1-88 and 13-1-92 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the similar matters. As per the directions issued by this Court the State enacted the law relating to the service conditions of the employees working in the government-aided educational institutions and also framed the Rules. Without challenge to any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and without considering those provisions, the writ petition should not have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge and no direction for the modification of the Rules could have been made. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in disposing of the writ petition without considering the provisions of the Act and the Rules. (12). The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant State to modify or frame the Rules in order to give parity to the teachers and the staff wor- king in the government aided educational institutions with that of the persons working in the government educational institutions. It is true that prior to filing of the writ petition there was neither any Act nor any Rules dealing with the service conditions of the employees working in the government aided educational institutions and there were only the Rules for payment of Grant-in-aid to the non-govern- ment educational,cultural and physical education institutions in Rajasthan, 1963. (13). The Rule making function is a legislative act and not a quasi-judicial or Executive act. To legislate a particular law is the function of the Legislature. (13). The Rule making function is a legislative act and not a quasi-judicial or Executive act. To legislate a particular law is the function of the Legislature. The Courts can interpret the law but cannot legislate it. The Constitution of India has demarcated the sphere of the activities of the three Organs of the `State, i.e., Legi- slature, Judiciary and Executive. Each organ of the `State is expected to operate in the area limited and demarcated for it. The judiciary, in the garb of judicial activism cannot transgress the sphere left for the Legislature or the Executive. Such transgression of the powers by the judiciary is not permissible. The power to make Service Rules relating to the persons working in the non-government educational institutions vests with the State and the Governor and the High Court cannot direct the Legislature to make Rules relating to the particular class of persons. The State, while enacting the Act or the Rules, has to take into consideration various circums- tances like feasibility, financial implications etc. etc. Directing the State Government to amend/modify the law in terms of the directions given by the Court would be arrogating the legislative functions which power the Courts do not possess. As the Court has no power to legislate, therefore, it cannot give any direction to the Legislature or the State Government to frame a particular rule or the conditions of service. The directions given by the learned Single Judge are legislative in nature and, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Single Judge has over-stepped His jurisdiction in directing the State and its functionaries to frame particular Rules. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. (14). It has been held by the Supreme Court in Mullikar juna Rao and Others etc.etc. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (1) that ``it is neither legal nor proper for the High Court or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory surmons to the Executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the Executive under the Constitution. The special rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The powers under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame the Rules is Legislative power. The special rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The powers under Article 309 of the Constitution to frame the Rules is Legislative power. This power under the Constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governors of the States, as the case may be. The High Court or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the Executive under the Constitution and cannot even indirectly require the Executive to exercise its rule-making power in any manner. The Court cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule-making power of the Executive under Article 309. (15). The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. A.R. Zakki and Others (2) and it was held by the Supreme Court that ``a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regard the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Section 110 of the J & K Constitution, which is on the same line as Article 234 of the Constitution of India, vests in the Governor, the power to make rules for appointments of persons other than the District Judges to the Judicial Service of the State of J & K and for framing of such rules, the Governor is required to consult the Commission and the High Court. This power to frame rules is legislative in nature. A writ of mandamus cannot, therefore, be issued directing the State Government to make the Rules in accordance with the proposal made by the High Court. (16). In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant State ``to modify the Rules of 1963 which are administrative in character and the condition should be added therein that the institutions getting grant-in-aid will have to provide atleast equal facilities in the matter of house rent, city allowance, State Insurance, leave encashment, loan and advances, dearness allowance, selection grades, medical facilities and retiral benefits like gratuity, pension etc. at the same rate at which the teachers and the employees of the government schools are getting. at the same rate at which the teachers and the employees of the government schools are getting. The learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the same relief given by the Single Judge of this Court earlier in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2027 of 1988 (Prakash Chaturvedi vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) to the teachers and the employees of the government-aided educational institutions. (17). The main dispute relates to the grant of pensionary benefits to the teachers and staff working in government-aided educational institutions. Pensionary benefits Scheme under the Act and the Rules has not been made applicable to these employees and for these persons the Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F.) Scheme has been introduced. The objective of pension and contributory provident fund are the same and both are retiral benefits. Both are in the nature of social security plans consistent with the socio- economic requirements of the Constitution of India. The object of these post-retiral benefit is to provide a descent standard of life to the working people after their superannuation and to avoid destitution in old age. Pension is a socio-economic justice measure providing relief when adva- nce age gradually impairs the physical and mental capacity. The pension is linked with the length of service and the last pay drawn. Under the pension scheme, the retiree receives the periodic money payment till he survives, as a reward for his past service, while the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme is the benefit which the retiree person receives as lump sum payment which includes the amount dedu- cted from his salary every month and credited to the provident fund scheme as well as the equal amount contributed by the employer which too is credited to the fund and the interest thereon. The retiring persons who receive the provident fund at the time of retirement are at liberty to invest this amount in the manner that may gradually yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trend. It is true that the pension scheme is more beneficial to the retiring person looking to the advancing age, gradually impairing physical and mental capacity and to avoid destitution in old age, but the right to receive pension flows to the employee by virtue of the Rules of Service by which the employee is governed. Pensionary benefits constitute the Conditions of Service. Pensionary benefits constitute the Conditions of Service. If there is a rule relating to providing pensionary benefits then the employee is entitled for the same but the Courts cannot give any direction to the State Government to make a rule relating to grant of pension to the employees of the government aided schools. Before making any provision and framing the Rules, the State Government has to see the feasibility of the scheme, the financial implications of the same and the extent of the capacity of the employer to bear this burden. The pensionary benefit can be extended to the employee of the government aided institutions by the State Government by framing the rules keeping in view of the financial burden which the Scheme may throw upon the employer. (18). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sangh that a differential treatment has been given to the teachers working in the government aided educational institutions to that of the teachers and the employees of the government schools though they are doing the same duties and, therefore, this amounts to an arbitrary and hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The teachers and the employees working in the govern- ment school and government-aided educational institutions form two distinct and different classes and not one homogenus class. As such there is no question of discrimination between the similarly situated person. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India and Others (3) and in D.S. Nakara and Others VS. Union of India (4) held that ``all retirees though holding the similar positions in the same department, do not form one class and thus did not obliterate the distinction between Railway employees governed by the provident fund scheme and those governed by the pension scheme. ``It has, also, been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj (5) that ``the contributory provident fund retirees and the employees of the pension scheme form two different classes. The persons working in the government aided educational institutions and the persons working in the government schools, thus, form two different classes and there is no question of any discrimination so far as the rules relating to their service conditions are concerned and they are governed by different sets of the rules though their service conditions may be the same. (19). (19). The next question which requires consideration is that the judgment dated 16-12-87 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 443 of 1987 (Rajasthan Universities and College Teachers Association vs. State of Rajasthan) and the judgment dated 4-1-91 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1647 of 1991 (Sarkari Sahayata Prapt Shikshan Sansthan Shikshak and Karamchari Sangh, Rajasthan, Jodhpur vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) and the judgment dated 9-2-92 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5447 of 1992 (Prakash Chaturvedi vs. State of Rajasthan and Others) became final and the members of the petitioner Sangh acquired certain rights and they cannot be divested of their rights. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has relied upon the Accountant General and another vs. S. Doraiswamy and Others (6), Ex.-Capt. K.C. Arora and another vs. State of Haryana and Others (7), Ahmeda Hussain Khera and another etc. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (8) and T.R. Kapur and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (9). There is not dispute so far as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these cases that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service carries out the power to amend and alter the rules with retrospective effect and the rules defining qualification and suitability for promotion or conditions of service and a benefit acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect and there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which may affect or impair the vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided under the Rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment in the Rules cannot be reverted and the promotion cannot be recalled. (20). But the question in the present case is : whether the employees of the government-aided educational institutions have acquired any right of pension or other service benefits in parity with the government employees working in the government schools? The only direction given in these judgments was that the government should try its level best to see that the legislation governing the non- governmental educational institutions is enacted at an early date relating to laying down the service conditions of the teaching staff of the non-governmental educational institutions. The only direction given in these judgments was that the government should try its level best to see that the legislation governing the non- governmental educational institutions is enacted at an early date relating to laying down the service conditions of the teaching staff of the non-governmental educational institutions. When these writ petitions were decided, the Bill relating to Non-government Educational Institutions was already pending for screening before the Select Committee and the Legislature passed the Bill and that became the Act No. 19 of 1992 which was made applicable with effect from 1-1-93. Rules have, also, been framed. Almost all the facilities and the service benefits available to the government employees working in the government schools have been given to the employees of the government aided educational institutions also, except the pensionary benefits and other like facilities. By enacting the Act and the Rules, the com- pliance of the order passed by the Court has been made and we are of the view that no right in pursuance to these judgments accrued to the members of the petitioners Sangh and, therefore, there was no question of divesting of any vested right of the members of the petitioners Sangh. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners Sangh is, therefore, devoid of any force. (21). The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that by way of the legislation the judgment of the Court cannot be put at a naught. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner Sangh) has placed reliance over S.R. Bhagwal and Others vs. State of Mysore (10) and State of Orissa and Others vs. Gopal Chandra Rath and Others (11). It is true that the right accrued to a person on the basis of the judgment cannot be taken away retrospectively by way of a legislation. Though the legislature has power to validate an Act by removing the infirmity indicated in the judgment retrospectively but the binding judicial pronouncements between the parties cannot be made ineffective, set-aside or annulled with the aid of any legislative power by making a provision which, in substance, over-rules such judgment. The Legislature by a legislative act cannot set-aside, annul or over-ride the judgment of the Court. The Legislature by a legislative act cannot set-aside, annul or over-ride the judgment of the Court. In the present case, during the pendency of the first writ petition even, the Bill relating to the Non-government Educational Institutions was pending which became the law in the year 1992 and was made applicable w.e.f. 1-1-1993. The Rules were, also, enacted in the year 1993 under Section 43 of the Act. Neither the Rules nor the Act has been enacted with the purpose to set-aside, annul or over- ride the judgments of this Court, rather the Act has been enacted as per the directions given in these judgments, making the provisions for the service conditions of the employees working in the non-govern- ment educational institutions. The cases, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner Sangh) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner is, therefore, bereft of any substance. (22). In this view of the matter, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set-aside. (23). In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment dated 27-5-93 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set-aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner Sangh is dismissed.