(1) MUKUND Lal National Senior Secondary School, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the School") is a State-aided institution. Earlier it was having 11 classes on 10+1 basis. In 1985 the State of Haryana introduced the 10+2+3 system of education in the schools and colleges in Haryana and consequently Class XII was introduced in the School in 1986. As a result, additional teachers were required to be appointed. The appellants were appointed as teachers to teach Classes XI and XII in the School from July 1986 onwards in the year 1986. The claim of the appellants is that they should be paid the same emoluments as are being paid to the teachers in government schools and that their pay scale was less than that of the teachers in the government schools inasmuch as they were not given the benefit of the revision of pay scales which were introduced in the year 1990. They filed a writ petition before the High court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed by the High court by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. (2) WE have been informed that out of the six appellants in this appeal two of the appellants, namely, Mrs Nisha Bhardwaj and Mrs Madhu Duggal, Respondents 5 and 6 respectively, have left the School and they are no longer in employment in the School. The appeal is, therefore, confined to Appellants 1 to 4. (3) THE grievance of the appellants as well as of the Management of the School is that after the upgradation of the School to 10+2 level in 1986, a request was made by the Management to the State government for sanctioning 18 additional posts of teachers and that against the said request only one post was sanctioned and 17 posts were not sanctioned. It was pointed out that same is the position in respect of other schools in the State of Haryana. By order dated 20/2/1996, this court directed the State Government to constitute a three-member Committee which would prescribe the norms for sanctioning the additional posts of teachers to meet the requirement of additional teachers on account of upgradation of the schools from 10+1 to 10+2 level and the Committee would also examine the claims of the managements of the various schools for sanctioning additional posts of teachers in the light of the norms that were prescribed. In accordance with the directions contained in the said order, the State government constituted a Committee and the said Committee has submitted its report dated 18/9/1996. The Committee, in its report, has prescribed the norms to be adopted for sanctioning the posts of teachers and has examined the claims of the Management of the Schools for sanctioning additional posts of teachers in the School. According to the report of the Committee, additional posts of only one full-time and one part-time post of teacher were required in the School as per the norms laid by the Committee. The Committee has proceeded on the basis that the additional post of teachers have to be taken on the basis of the enrolment in 1985-86 and that, if the enrolment in the School had increased or was increased after 1985-86, the government shall have no liability to pay the expenditure of the additional posts required by the School on account of increased enrolment. The assessment about the number of additional teachers needed in the School has been made by the Committee on the basis of the number of students in Class XI in the School in 1985. (4) SHRI Pankaj Kaira, the learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the Committee was in error in basing its recommendations on the number of students enrolled in Class XI in the year 1985 and that for the purpose of assessing the requirement of additional number of teachers in the School, the Committee should have taken into consideration the number of students enrolled in Classes XI and XII at the beginning of the session in 1986 when the 10+2 system came into force. The learned counsel appearing for the Management of the School has also taken the same stand. (5) THE learned counsel for the State of Haryana has placed reliance on the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Steering Committee that was established for implementation of 10+2+3 pattern of education, which was held on 6/3/1985. It has been urged that enrolment of students was made in Classes XI and XII in the School in 1986 in violation of the decision of the Steering Committee taken in the said meeting. We have perused the said minutes of the Steering Committee. It has been urged that enrolment of students was made in Classes XI and XII in the School in 1986 in violation of the decision of the Steering Committee taken in the said meeting. We have perused the said minutes of the Steering Committee. We do not find anything in the said minutes which may indicate that the enrolment for the year 1985 in Class XI would be the basis for determining the strength of the teachers in the schools after the introduction of the 10+2+3 pattern of education. On the other hand, in para 12 of the said minutes it is stated as under: "Admission to plus 2 classes should be regulated, so as to avoid too much rush in any one institution, as compared to the other institutions located at the same place. To achieve this end, subjects and number of seats for each subject in each institution should be laid down." (6) THERE is nothing to show that in accordance with the said decision the authorities had laid down the number of students to be admitted in plus 2 classes in the School. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Committee was in error in basing its recommendations on the number of students enrolled in the School in Class XI in 1985 for the purpose of determining the additional strength of the teachers on account of the introduction of the 10+2+3 pattern of education. In our opinion the said assessment should have been made on the basis of the enrolment in Classes XI and XII in the School in the beginning of the 1986 session, which was admittedly 427 in Class XI and 231 in Class XII. In our opinion the said assessment should have been made on the basis of the enrolment in Classes XI and XII in the School in the beginning of the 1986 session, which was admittedly 427 in Class XI and 231 in Class XII. We, therefore, direct the Director of Secondary Education to determine whether the four appellants (Appellants 1 to 4 who are employed in the School can be adjusted against the additional posts that are required as a result of the introduction of the 10+2 system in the School in 1986 on the basis of the enrolment of the students in Classes XI and XII at the beginning of the session in 1986 and, if it is found that as a result of such determination additional posts of teachers are required in the School and the four appellants can be adjusted in those posts, the Director of Secondary Education shall pass an appropriate order in that regard and the State government shall give the necessary approval for the additional posts of teachers in the School. Having regard to the fact that a the appellants had filed the writ petition in the High court in January 1993, we direct that the sanction of the additional posts that are determined in pursuance of this order shall be effective from 1/1/1993 and that the State government shall release the necessary grant for payment of the salary and allowances that would be payable to the appellants with effect from 1/1/1993 as a result of the sanction of the additional posts against which they would be adjusted. (7) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.