M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate. ( 2 ) THE solitary grievance of the petitioners is that even though the newly started divisions are eligible for the grant of aid, that it has been wrongly denied as far as the petitioners are concerned. It is submitted that the refusal is discriminatory vis-a-vis the petitioners and that therefore, this Court should direct the respondents to make available the grant-in-aid to the newly started divisions also. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Advocate has stated several reasons including the fact that normally, for a prescribed period of time the newly started institutions are denied aid and secondly in this particular case, the petitioners agreed that they would be financially self-sufficient and that therefore, they may be permitted to start the divisions without aid. He also submitted that this undertaking has been given by them because they knew that the permission would not have been otherwise granted and that therefore, they are bound by their own assurances. ( 4 ) IRRESPECTIVE of whatever understanding may be there, when the newly sanctioned divisions were started the position in law is that, it is the constitutional obligation and duty of the state to accord highest priority to education both primary and higher secondary and in this regard the educational needs rise from year to year and the State will have to provide in its budget the necessary financial provision for this purpose. Financial constraints are no defence to situations of this type and this court cannot uphold any condition which prescribes that a recognised educational institution or part thereof will be deprived of aid. The need is far greater when it comes to rural areas because the end result of not sanctioning the aid would reflect on the teachers not getting their salaries or the institutions will have to face difficulties for finance. It is in this background, that this Court is required to quash the order in this case which proceeds on the footing that it is not right for the petitioners to demand the aid. I also see no justification to remand the matter to the authorities any further. Refusal to grant aid to the petitioners for the additional divisions is totally unjustified in the circumstances of the case. I also see no justification to remand the matter to the authorities any further. Refusal to grant aid to the petitioners for the additional divisions is totally unjustified in the circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) IN this background, the respondents are directed to sanction to the petitioners aid in respect of the additional divisions with effect from 1-1-1996. With this direction, rule is made absolute and the petition to stand disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .