O. P. GARG, J. Whether the teaching and non-teaching employees of private recognised primary schools are entitled to full salary, all allowances and other benefits as are admissible to their counter parts in the Basic Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad (for short parishad), U. P. is the moot point which arises for consideration and determination in the present two writ petitions, which are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that there is a. Montessori school with the name of,shri Maheshwar Montessori Bal Mandir Madar Gate, Aligarh. The said school is. run and managed by a private body. The said school was recognised in the "year 1962 by the District Inspector of Schools (for short digs) which was the competent authority to grant recognition as the Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam has not by that time come into force. The school was brought on the grant-in-aid list by the State in the year 1963 and since then the grant is being released by the State Government for disbursement of the salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff. 3. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 11031 of 1996 - Smt. Sushila Srivastava, Petitioner No. 1 is the Directoress, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are teachers, Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 are clerks while Petitioner Nos. 10 to 13 are class IV employees. The appointment of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 who are on teaching staff, were duly approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School (for short rigs) Agra/basic Education Of ficer, Aligarh while the Committee of Management had made appointments of class III and IV posts. The teachers and the employees of the recognised aided Mon tessori schools are paid out of the grant released by the State Government. In the year 1975, U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975) were framed. Rule 10 of the said Rules reads as follows: "10. A recognised school shall undertake to pay with effect from July 1, 1975 to every teacher and employee the same scale of pay dearness allowance and additional dearness al lowance as are paid to the teachers and employees of the Board possessing similar qualification. Pay will he disbursed through cheque. " 4. A recognised school shall undertake to pay with effect from July 1, 1975 to every teacher and employee the same scale of pay dearness allowance and additional dearness al lowance as are paid to the teachers and employees of the Board possessing similar qualification. Pay will he disbursed through cheque. " 4. It appears that no action was taken for a considerable long time under the said Rules and the employees of the recognised Basic schools continued to be paid salary which was much less in comparison to the employees of the Basic Schools run by the Parishad. However, in the years 1986 and 1987, the State Government issued orders to enhance the grant to the recognised Basic Schools including the Montessori Schools on the basis of revised pay scales. Later on, the requisite grants were not released. Consequently, a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17846 of 1988 was filed by Shri Maheshwar Montessori Bal Mandir Madar Gate, Aligarh, which was finally decided on 27-11-1991. The State Government was directed to release enhanced giant so that the salary to the teachers is paid in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975. The direction of this court in that petition was as follows: "i accordingly direct that the Government should release the enhanced grant of the petitioner keeping in mind that the enhanced grant should be sanctioned on the basis of paying salary to the teachers in accordance with Rule 10 as quoted above. The necessary grant should be released within three months from the date the certified copy of this order is received by the Secretary, Education Department, U. P. Government, Lucknow. " 5. It appears that the State Govern ment filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court to challenge the order dated 27-11-1991 passed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 17846 of 1988. The S. L. P. , which was numbered as S. L. P. (Civil) 15789 of 1992 was dismissed on 14-1-1993. The State Government moved a review peti tion No. 1245 of 1993 before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed on 20-7-1993. For quite some time, the State Government did not comply with the order passed by this court, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. The State Government moved a review peti tion No. 1245 of 1993 before the Supreme Court which too was dismissed on 20-7-1993. For quite some time, the State Government did not comply with the order passed by this court, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. On 24-8-1993, an order was issued by the State Government asking for detailed accounts of the pay ment of salary and allowances to the teachers so that requisite grants may be released. In the said letter, a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition, a refer ence was made to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975 as well as to Paragraph 308 of the Education Code. Paragraph 308 of the Education Code reads as follows: "308. The annual gram shall not exceed the difference between the approved annual cost of maintenance and the approved income of the institution from fees and private sources or half the annual cost of the maintenance, whichever is less. " The effect of the aforesaid Govern ment order was that in view of the provisions of Paragraph 308 of the Educa tion Code, only half salary of the teachers of the Montessori Schools was to be paid/reimbursed by the Government while under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975, full salary and allowances are payable by the Government to the teachers of the Basic Schools. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government has failed to implement the judgment of this court as affirmed by the Supreme Court though it is duty bound to pay full salary to the petitioners as is being paid to the teachers and employees of the Basic Schools run and maintained by the Parishad in view of provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975; that recourse to Paragraph 308 of the Education Code, which is merely in the form of executive instructions cannot be taken and, therefore, there is no justifica tion to withhold half salary of the petitioners by the State Government by invoking the provisions of Paragraph 308 of the Code. It is, there for, prayed that the respondents be commanded to pay full salary to the petitioners, as is being paid to the teachers and other employees of the Basic Schools run and maintained by Parishad w. e. f. 1986-87 till date and in fu ture as and when it accrues. 6. It is, there for, prayed that the respondents be commanded to pay full salary to the petitioners, as is being paid to the teachers and other employees of the Basic Schools run and maintained by Parishad w. e. f. 1986-87 till date and in fu ture as and when it accrues. 6. Another Civil Misc. Writ No. 12826 of 1997, has been filed by the Com mittee of Management of Shree Mahesh-war Montessori Bal Mandir Madar Gate, Aligarh taking almost the same grounds, as mentioned above, for the relief that the respondents be commanded to pay full salary, Dearness Allowance, City Com pensatory Allowance, House Rent Al lowance, Bonus, Interim Relief, including benefits of selection grade and retiral benefits to the teachers and other employees of the petitioner institution as are admissible to the teachers and Other employees of the Basic Schools run by the Parishad. It has also been prayed that the impugned order dated 29-3-1997, An nexure 8 to the writ petition, whereby grant-in-aid has been curtailed to the petitioners school be quashed and the respondents be further commanded to pay grant in accordance with the details sent by the DIGS and the Accounts Officer, men tioned in the letters of the Deputy Direc tor of Education dated 3-9-1996, An- nexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition, along with interim relief as admissible by Government order dated 16-8-1995. 7. Counter, rejoinder and various Supplementary Affidavits have been ex changed and brought on record. 8. The stand taken on behalf of the State is-that the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rule of 1975 are not applicable to the private recognised institutions but are ap plicable only to those Basic Institutions, which are run by the Parishad ; that Chap ter IX of the U. P Education Code, 1958 which deals with the grants-in-aid to the recognised institutions provides for an nual grants to the extent of half of the whole tutional expenditure on the institu tion and in view of express provisions of Paras 295, 307 and 308 of the Code, the grant claimed by the petitioners cannot be released. It is also stated under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1975, the appointment of only those teachers has to be taken into con-sideration who possess the minimum req uisite qualifications and for whose ap pointment, prior approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been obtained in writing, that the minimum qualification of the teachers in Intermediate Pass and B. T. C Trained. According to the respon dents, since the appointments of the teachers have been made by the Commit tee of Management, the teachers of the institution in question are not entitled to the benefit of the provision of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975. It is maintained that the liability of the Government is limited to the maintenance grant under Paragraph 308 of the U. P Education Code. 9. Heard Shri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners in the two peti tions and learned Standing counsel. 10. At the outset, decks may be cleared from the cobwebs created on ac count of the pleas taken in the counter-af fidavit by the State. The stand of the State is that, the provisions of Rules of 1975 are not- applicable to the private recognised Basic Schools and that the Rules are ap plicable only for the benefit of the teachers of the Schools run by the Parishad. In this connection, a short and swift reference may be made to the provisions of Rules of 1975. The title of the Rules indicates that the Rules have been framed with a view to make provisions with regard to the recruitment and conditions of service of teachers of the recognised Basic Schools. The expression recognised Schools has been defined in Rule 2 (e) of the Rules. "recognised School" means any Junior Basic School, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body, recognised by the Board before the commencement of these rules for imparting education from Class I to V Rules 3 provides that every recog nised school shall be bound by the condi tions and restrictions specified under Rules 4 to 14. A bare reading of the Rules would make it amply clear that they apply to all the recognised Schools and do not exclude from their operation the private recognised institutions. A bare reading of the Rules would make it amply clear that they apply to all the recognised Schools and do not exclude from their operation the private recognised institutions. It is indubitable fact that the petitioners institution has been duly recognised and since it is a recognised School, the Rules of 1975 ap plied to it. The reference by the respon dents to U. P High School (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1978 is, therefore, wholly misplaced. There can be no doubt about the fact that the services of the teachers of the petitioners institution are governed by the Rules of 1975. It has also been so held in the earlier Writ Petition No. 17846 of 1988. 11. All the teachers of the petitioners institution have been duly ap pointed and their appointments have been approved by the competent authority, namely, RIGS Agra/district Basic Educa tion Officer, Aligarh. The fact of their ap pointment and approval is beyond the pale of controversy. This controversy has un necessarily been introduced in the counter-affidavit by the respondents. 12. Now the question is as to which provision-whether Paragraph 308 of the Education Code or Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975, would prevail. It is accepted at all hands that Paragraph 308 of the Code has been in existence much prior to the enfor cement of the Rules of 1975. The Code, as has been mentioned in the counter- af fidavit in Civil Misc. Writ No. 12826 of 1997, is the legacy of the British regime. Not only this, the provisions of the Code are mere executive instructions having no statutory force. This aspect of the matter came to be considered in the Full Bench decision of this court reported in AIR 1980 All 1966, Magdn Ram Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education and others. In that case, the provisions of Paragraph 143 of the Code came to be considered. It was held that the said provision, or for that matter, U. P. Education Code, has no statutory force. The various provisions made in the Education Code are in the nature of administrative directions for the guidance of the authorities of the Education Department, The various pr visions in the Code certainly do not have i,e back ing of law and, therefore, as against Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975, they would be of no consequence. The various provisions made in the Education Code are in the nature of administrative directions for the guidance of the authorities of the Education Department, The various pr visions in the Code certainly do not have i,e back ing of law and, therefore, as against Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975, they would be of no consequence. Subsequent statutory rule would override the administrative provision or executive instructions con tained in the for A of various paragraphs of the Education Code. Therefore, the State Government cannot assert that it is not bound to release the grant-in-aid more than what is required under the provisions of the Education Code. There can be no escape from the finding that the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules 1975 are applicable to the teaching and non teaching staff of the petitioners institution. Now the question is can the petitioners be denied the benefits of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1975 on the ground of paucity of funds or on an illusory distinc tion in between the teaching and non-teaching staff of private recognised primary schools and the schools run by the Parishad It would not be out of place to mention that in the rase of Unnikrish-nan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178 , the apex- court has declared that the children have a fundamental right to get free education. This court has also held in S. K. Dixit v. district Inspector of Schools, 1995 (26) ALR 601, that right to get education means the right to get good quality of education and not any kind of education. If the teachers of the Primary School are not satisfied with their emolu ments or they are discriminated in the matter of payment of salary, allowances and other benefits with their counterparts in other institutions run by the Parishad, a feeling of frustration and desperation is bound to be generated with the result, it cannot the expected that a dissatisfied and disgruntled teacher would deliver the goods. The ultimate sufferers would be the children whose right to get free education has been recognised as fundamental right by the apex court. The ultimate sufferers would be the children whose right to get free education has been recognised as fundamental right by the apex court. This aspect of the matter also came to be considered by this court in Ramji Tewari and others v. District Inspec tor of Schools, Azamgarh and others, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 690 , in which it was observed that the claim of the petitioners for salary as teachers in the primary sec tion is inextricably inter linked with the fundamental right of the children to get free education up to the age of 14 years. It is obvious that unless such teachers arc given proper salaries, allowances and per quisites they will not take proper interest in their work and hence the children will not gel proper education. This court was of the opinion that the claim of the teachers of the primary classes to get proper salaries, etc. and the fundamental right of children to get education are two sides to the same coin. Certain instruc tions were issued for granting requisite -emoluments, perquisites and incentives to the teachers of the primary Schools. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the another decision of the apex court reported in AIR 1997 SC 449 State of Haryana and others v. Rajpal Sharma and others, in which the question of parity in pay scales between the teachers of a recognised aided Schools and the teachers of a Government school came to be considered. Relying upon the decision in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 571 : AIR 1988 SC 1663 , the apex court came to the con clusion that the teachers of aided schools must be paid the same pay scales and dear-ness allowances as teachers in Govern ment Schools for the entire period served them. The matter again came to be con sidered in the case of Haryana State Ad hyapak Sangh. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 968 , in which a positive direction was issued to the effect that from April 1, 1990, the teachers employed in aided schools shall be paid the same salary and dearness allowances as is paid to the teachers employed in the Government Schools and the said benefit was extended to the privately managed aided Schools. In K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Shri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineer ing and another, AIR 1998 SC 295 , the question of equal pay for equal work was raised. Executive instructions were issued by the Government giving the employees of private educational institutions right to claim pay scale at par with the Govern ment employees. It was observed by the apex Court that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to the people to avail of the right of education. The private institutions cater to the needs of educational- opportunities which has element of public interest. A teacher duly appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. A dispute was raised in that case about the forum which such employees of the private institutions should approach. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the remedy is available under Industrial Dis putes Act. However, Supreme Court took the view that an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that elements, the teacher, the arm of the institution is also entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226, under which the jurisdiction is very wide. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is beyond doubt that the teachers employed in the recognised Basic Schools are entitled to the same salary, allowances, benefits and facilities as are available to their counter parts in the Primary Schools run by the Parishad. The teachers of the recognised Basic Schools cannot be discriminated in the matter of emoluments, facilities and other benefits. 13. In conclusion, both the writ peti tions succeed and are hereby allowed. Quashing the impugned order dated 29-3-1997, which curtails the grant to the petitioners School, the respondents-State of U. P. as well as Director of Education (Basic), Lucknow are commanded to pay full salary, dearness allowance, other al lowances, bonus, interim relief, including the benefits of Selection Grade as well as retiral benefits, to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Shri Maheshwar Montessori Bal Mandir, Madar Gate, Aligarh as are admissible and being paid to the teaching and non-teaching employees of Basic Schools run by the Parishad, with immediate effect. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .