STATE OF KARNATAKA v. B. R. CHOWDAPPA — 1998 DIGILAW 288 (KAR)

SETHI, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, the question involved pertains to grant of aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to the educational institutions run by the private managements for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff, whose appointments have been approved by the Government under the Code. ( 2 ) WHILE in some of the Writ Petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff the prayer is for a mandamus to release the salary from the respective dates of approval of the appointments, in the writ Petitions filed by the managements of private educational institution the petitioners are aggrieved by the discriminatory action of the State Government in the matter of grant of aid. The Writ appeal are filed by the State and the Educational Department being aggrieved by the directions issued in the Writ Petitions for release of salary or grant, as the case may be. ( 3 ) THE contention of the Government is that the staff are being appointed by the respective managements of the Schools and the relationship between the managements and the staff is that of master and servant and therefore the state is not liable to pay the salary of the staff. It is further contended that the aid is given under the Code only to the managements and not to the teachers. The points that are raised for consideration by the State are: a) Whether the staff (teaching and non-teaching) working in educational institutions run by private managements can maintain writ Petitions to claim financial aid from the State Government in the absence of master and servant relationship? b) Whether the managements of private educational institutions can claim financial aid as a matter of right? c) Whether the Private educational institutions which are admitted to grant-in-aid under the code are entitled to claim the grant from the dates of their establishment merely because they have completed the eligibility under the Code or the relevant government order? d) Whether the private educational institutions or the staff are entitled to claim financial grant from the dates of the appointment of the staff when their appointment are approved subsequently? d) Whether the private educational institutions or the staff are entitled to claim financial grant from the dates of the appointment of the staff when their appointment are approved subsequently? e) Whether the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Code, which is in the nature of executive instructions, would confer a right upon the private educational institutions to claim financial grant from the Government? ( 4 ) THE managements of the educational institutions have sought for a Writ of mandamus to the State Government to admit their educational institutions to grant-in-aid and to grant aid to run the schools to impart education to the students. Which is the function of the Government. It is contended that under Article 45 of the constitution of India, it is one of the Directive principles of the State to give education to the students and since the Government has not been discharging the said constitutional obligation, the same is being discharged by the private educational institutions by obtaining recognition from the Government. It is stated that the state has been discriminating in admitting the private educational institutions to gra eventhough recognition was obtained under the Code. According to the managements, the Government is selecting certain managements for granting the aid under the Code and this action is a clear of discrimination. ( 5 ) IN the Writ Petitions filed by the staff it is contended that the private educational institutions in which they are working are recognised under the Code and the institutions having satisfied the eligibility criteria for admitting to grant, they are entitled for salary grant. According to them, the educational institutions are under the administrative, supervisory and financial control of the State government under the relevant provisions of the repealed Karnataka private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1957 (Which is hereinafter referred to as 'the PEI Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the Karnataka Private Educational institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). According to them, even their recruitment, disciplinary control etc. , are subject to the approval of the State government and since their salaries are not paid by the managements on account of denial of grant by the Government, they have approached this Court for necessary reliefs. According to them, even their recruitment, disciplinary control etc. , are subject to the approval of the State government and since their salaries are not paid by the managements on account of denial of grant by the Government, they have approached this Court for necessary reliefs. It is their further case that there is the relationship of master and servant between them and the Government and hence they are entitled to seek appropriate Writ for this Court and that their Writ Petitions are maintainable. It is further contended that the private educational institutions are discharging public duties and therefore they can approach this Court for grant appropriate reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the institutions are amenable to Writ jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this contention they have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of unnikrishan (A. I. R. 1993 SC 2178 ). ( 6 ) SRI. K. Viswanath, learned Additional Government Advocate, has vehemently contended that the staff or the private educational managements are not entitled to claim grant of aid as a matter of right as the Code is in the nature of executive instructions which have not statutory force. He submits that the grant of aid is a matter of policy of the State. Government and only such of the institutions which have fulfilled the requirements under the Code and which are eligible to grant would be admitted for grant and the same cannot be termed as discriminatory. He further submitted that mere recognition of private educational institutions would not confer either statutory or fundamental right upon such educational institutions to claim aid. He pointed-out that at the time of securing recognition the managements have given an undertaking that they would not claim any aid for their staff. He further submits that the principal employer would be the management of educational institution and not the State government. The Government Advocate produced a copy of the government Order dated 8. 2. 1996 supercetiing all earlier orders relating to eligibility period to admit to grant-in-aid all types of Schools and Collages and that the Schools sanctioned and started from the academic year 1987-88 shall be treated as unaided Schools/colleges. In view of this order, the learned Government Advocate submits that the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted in these matters. In view of this order, the learned Government Advocate submits that the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted in these matters. However, by another Government order dated 28. 10. 1997 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20. 2. 1997 it has been ordered to set apart and reserve 3% of the grant allocated to the private schools and colleges from the financial year 1996-97 and subsequent years for admitting to grant additional sections/subjects in aided private schools and colleges which have been sanctioned on permanently unaided basis, subject to the conditions enumerated therein. In view of this order, the learned Additional Government advocate submits that the Writ appeals filed by the State are to be allowed and the impugned order of the learned single Judge passed in the Writ Petitions filed by the staff should be set aside. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the managements of educational institutions it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel appearing for them that either for grant or refusal of aid the Government cannot discriminate between one educational institution and another as the exercise of power would be subject to Article 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that the exercise of power either under the act, or the Rules or the Code must be reasonable and justiciable and shall not be arbitrary and discriminatory. Reliance has been placed in support of this on the decision reported in A. I. R 1986 SC 1175. It was further contended that as law declared by the Apex court in the case of UNNIKRISHNAN (A. I. R 1993 S. C 2178) imparting education is the constitutional obligation on the part of the government, which obligation is being discharged by the private educational institutions after obtaining necessary recognition under the Code and therefore they are all entitled to be admitted under the Code and the Government has to grant the aid to them. The government referred to above imposing restriction on the grant of aid is opposed to the Directive principles of the State and stoppage of grant is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The said policy is also opposed to public policy as the schools and institutions which were admitted to grant under the Code, on that basis they were running the institutions, have been taken away. The said policy is also opposed to public policy as the schools and institutions which were admitted to grant under the Code, on that basis they were running the institutions, have been taken away. It is therefore submitted that this Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consjitution of India and grant appropriate relief to the Writ petitioners. In addition to the reliance placed on the two decisions of the Supreme Court supra relied upon on behalf of the teaching and non-teaching staff, the dictum of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRI ANADI MUKTA sadguru SHREE MUKTAJEE VANDASJISWAMI SUVARNA jayanthi MAHOTSAV SMARAK TRUST vs V. R. RUDANP has been relied upon. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R 1967 sc 884 the relationship of master and servant exists between the government and the staff/institutions and therefore grant should be extended in favour of the petitioners. It was further contended that after the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Education Act') came into force with effect from January 19,1995, the Rules and the Code continue in force in view of the saving provision under Section 146 (3) of the Education Act. In view of this, the Rules, orders, notifications, code, appointments, schemes, bye- laws, regulations, official memorandums, circulars or any other orders made or issued prior to the commencement of the Education Act shall continue to be in force and therefore they are enforceable in a court of law. Under the Circumstances, it is contended that this court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution and grant the relief to the petitioners. ( 9 ) IN order to appreciate as to whether the Writ Petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff are maintainable or not and whether master and servant relationship exists between them and the Government, it is necessary to look into certain provisions of the act, Rules and the Code. The appointment of teaching and non- teaching staff are made by the managements of the concerned private educational institutions, subject to the approval by the government. After such approval, the service conditions were earlier regulated under the PEI Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The appointment of teaching and non- teaching staff are made by the managements of the concerned private educational institutions, subject to the approval by the government. After such approval, the service conditions were earlier regulated under the PEI Act and the Rules framed thereunder. After the Education Act was enacted, the PEI Act has been repealed under section 146 (1) of the Education Act. Notwithstanding such repeal the earlier actions made or done under the repealed Act shall continue and be completed and all Rules, orders, notifications, Grant- in-Aid codes, appointments, schemes, bye-laws, regulations, official memoranda-circulars or any other orders made or issued and in force shall continue unless and until superceded. In view of this, the appointments made, the grants admitted under the Code and all action made or done will remain in tact. In this background, we will proceed to examine the locus standi of teaching and non-teaching staff to maintain the Writ Petitions. ( 10 ) AS noticed above, the appointment of teaching and non-teaching members in private educational institutions is made by the managements subject to the approval of the Government. After entry into service, their service conditions are regulated by the Rules and the Education Act. The Education Act is a comprehensive one. A reading of whole provisions would reveal that a certain amount of responsibility is cast upon not only the private educational institutions but also on the officers, staff and even the parents also. The service conditions of the staff are regulated under chapter XIV of the education Act. This includes appointment, payment of salary, code of conduct, dismissal or removal. But, it cannot be said that there is master and servant relationship between the teaching and non- teaching staff and the Government. IN SHIVAJI HIGH SCHOOL vs prabhakar JOTIBA BAMANE2 a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held thus: "as learned single judge has rightly observed, there is no relationship of master and servant between the teachers of private educational institutions and the Government. The Government no doubt pays directly to teaches by way of grant to the management, but that does not mean that a teacher of a private educational institution can enforce his demand against the government. He could enforce his demand only against the management of his school. The liability to pay arises under the relationship of master and servant which exists oniy between the management and teachers. He could enforce his demand only against the management of his school. The liability to pay arises under the relationship of master and servant which exists oniy between the management and teachers. . . . The Primary liability to make such payment is that of the management. . . . . . . " we are in full agreement with the above decision. ( 11 ) THE appointment of staff of private educational institutions will be approved under the code either with or without grant. In order to receive salary under the grant, the institution should have been admitted to the aid. under the Code. The private managements shall pay the salary to their staff irrespective of grant released by the government. If the Government fails to release the grant, the staff cannot be deprived of their salary. If the management's reply is that since aid was not released, they are not in a position to pay their salary, in such circumstances, the teaching and non-teaching staff of private educational institutions can avail the other alternative remedy and seek necessary reliefs from the authorities prescribed under the Education Act including, the direction to release the salary. Such direction could be given by the prescribed authorities and the teaching staff need not approach this Court for grant of relief. No doubt the teaching and non-teaching of private educational institutions are discharging public duty of imparting education. But their primary relationship of master and servant is with the managements which appoint them. In that view of the matter, the remedy open to them is to approach the authorities prescribed under the Education Act or the Code and certainly not by way of Writ Petition. Viewed from this angle, the Writ Petitions filed by the teaching end non-teaching of private educational institutions are not maintainable. The reliance placed on the decision reported in 1995 (4) S. C. C. 507 supra has no application to the contention urged since what was in issue in that decision was with regard to the quantum of grant admissible to private educational institutions. ( 12 ) AS regards the locus standi of staff working in the afore said educational institutions to maintain the Writ petitions, they have got the remedy of appeal under Section 94 of the Education Act against an order of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank. ( 12 ) AS regards the locus standi of staff working in the afore said educational institutions to maintain the Writ petitions, they have got the remedy of appeal under Section 94 of the Education Act against an order of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank. Under Section 130, appeal is provided against eny order passed by an officer or authority under the Act. Section 131 provides for revision by Government either suo moto or on an application from any person interested. Section 132 of the Education Act provides for review by the State Government either suo moto or on an application received from any person interested. The Government is also vested with the power to give direction under Section 133 of the said Act to make enquiry or take appropriate proceeding by the Commissioner or director or any other officer not below the rank of District Educational officer and to submit report. Thus, the Education Act provides for appeal, revision and review in respect of any order and in the absence of any order, the Government can be moved for issuing necessary direction in exercise of its power under Section 133 and the staff can avail the said remedies. Even with regard to payment of salary, what is stated above with regard to the teaching and non- teaching staff applies the other staff also. Without exhausting such alternative remedy, they cannot be premitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 13 ) NOW we proceed to examine whether the private educational institutions can maintain Writ Petition and whether they can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) IN Unnikrishnan's case cited supra, the Apex Court has extracted as to what is education in para 142 as under:- "education is the special manifestation of man; education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; education is the teacher of the teacher; education secures honour at the hand of the state not money; a man without education is equal to animal". Imparting such education is the primary duty of the State. The citizens have a fundamental right to education. But the state itself is unable to provide the same to all citizens. The private educational institutions are imparting education. Imparting such education is the primary duty of the State. The citizens have a fundamental right to education. But the state itself is unable to provide the same to all citizens. The private educational institutions are imparting education. In this regard, the Supreme Court in paragraph 81 in Unnikrishnan's case considered the nature of functions discharged by these institutions and held as under:-"as a sequel to this, an important question arise: What is the nature of functions discharged by these institutions. They discharge a public duty. If a student desires to acquire a decree, for example, in medicine, he will have to route through a medical college. These medical colleges are the instruments to attain the qualification. If, therefore, what is discharged by the educational institution is a public duty that requires, to act fairly", ( 15 ) THE constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case cited supra has held that clearly and undoubtable, the recognised/affiliated private educational institutions supplement the functions performed by the institutions of the State. It was further held that theirs is not an independent activity but one closely allied to and supplemental to the activity of the State. ( 16 ) AS regards the right to maintain Writ Petitions by the managements of private educational institutions are concerned, under the Code or under the Education Act, appeal or review petition can be filed if there is an order and if aggrieved by it. In the absence of any order, the managements of private educational institutions cannot seek remedy before any authority, In such circumstance, the easiest, efficatious and quickest remedy available is under Article 226 of the constitution. When they are discharging the functions of the state in the matter of imparting education to the citizens, it cannot be said that they have no right to maintain Writ Petitions, especially when there is full administrative and managerial control by the Government. Therefore, in our opinion, the private recognised/affiliated educational institutions have got right to maintain Writ Petitions against the State and its authorities. ( 17 ) THE private educational institutions are discharging the functions of the State as education is being imparted through the teaching staff and non-teaching staff. Imparting of education is the duty of the state and since the same is being done by the private educational institutions, they are discharging public duties. ( 17 ) THE private educational institutions are discharging the functions of the State as education is being imparted through the teaching staff and non-teaching staff. Imparting of education is the duty of the state and since the same is being done by the private educational institutions, they are discharging public duties. In view of this also, the private educational institutions will have the right to file Writ Petitions such petitions are maintainable. ( 18 ) IN the above background, it has to be tested whether the private educational institutions can claim aid from the state as a matter of right. Private educational institutions are not imparting education freely. They are collecting various fees, donations, charges etc. , such collection of amount in various forms is not governed by any norms. Under Section 145 of the Education Act the Government is empowered to make rules in respect of various matters specified therein. Under sub-section{2) thereof, such rules may inter-alia provide for regulation of rates of fees to be levied and collected vide Clause (xix), the donations or contributions which may be accepted by the educational institutions from the public vide Clause (xxxv), and the scale of fees of charges or the manner of fixing fees or charges payable in respect of any certificate, permission, marks lists or other document for which such charges may be collected vide Clause (xxxviii ). ( 19 ) NO doubt the Government of Karnataka, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 145 (1) of the Education. Act has framed the rules called Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification and Registration) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred as 'the Education Rules' ). It is not a comprehensive Rule covering all the aspects specified in sub-section 2 (i) to (xxx-xi) of Section 145 of the Education Act. Since the Education Rules do not prescribe the rate of fees, the purpose for which the donations tnay be collected, the quantum of charges to be collected for various purposes, such as, for issuing application form for admission, marks lists, progress reports, term examinations, final examination, transfer certificate etc. , the private educational institutions and charging exhorbitant fees on the students and collect heavy donations in various forms without there being any control or regulatory provisions in this regard. , the private educational institutions and charging exhorbitant fees on the students and collect heavy donations in various forms without there being any control or regulatory provisions in this regard. The court takes judicial note of the aforesaid aspects from various circumstances, such as the information in the newspapers, the hue and cry of helpless parents, the conduct and attitude of managements of some of the private educational institutions, thr decision of the government not to grant recognition to new English medium schools thereby compelling the parents to admit their children only to the existing schools, taking advantage of such a situation the exploitation being made by the educational institutions by charging exhorbitant fees, collection of donations in various forms, levy and collection of various fees, charges etc,. ( 20 ) THE above-stated being the position, before proceeding to consider the point in issue, we are constrained to observe about the callousness of the State in not framing the regulatory Rules on such an important issue even after 50 years of independence and allowing the private educational institutions to charge their own fancy amounts on various heads on the one hand and the policy decision it had taken not to grant recognition to the starting of new schools, thereby forcing the parents to admit their children to the existing institutions without leaving any option and to spend considerable part of their hard earned money towards the education of their children alone. We regret for the sorry state of affairs in so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. ( 21 ) WHAT we have observed alone is a mete caution to the State about its slumberness in framing necessary regulatory Rules with regard to the quantum of fees, donations, charges etc. , that may be collected by private educational institutions. The same will not confer any right on the private educational institutions to claim aid from the state as a matter of right merely because they are imparting education- ( 22 ) UNDER Article 45 of the Constitution of India, the State has to provide free and compulsory education to the children upto the age of 14 years. In view of this constitutional obligation, the State has to provide free primary education to all the children upto the age of 14 years. In view of this constitutional obligation, the State has to provide free primary education to all the children upto the age of 14 years. As a result of this constitutional mandate, no fee can be charged for the primary education for the children upto the age of 14 years. Consequently, the State has to grant aid to that extent to all the recognised private primary educational institutions. The recognised primary educational institutions have got right to claim grant from the State only to that extent. To the above extent Rule 3 of the Code conferring full discretion to the Government in the matter of grants payable is bad and violative of Article 45 of the Constitution of India. ( 23 ) THE other private educational institutions cannot claim as a matter of right aid from the State. Giving aid to such institutions depends upon so many factors, such as the policy of the government, the availability of funds, the budgetary allocation for granting aid, the fulfillment of various terms and conditions of grant, the eligibility and admissibility for grant and so on. The grant of aid is governed by the Code and Sections 49 to 53 in Chapter IX of the education Act. ( 24 ) NORMALLY aid will be gra'nted to private educational institutions in order to make-good the shortage of funds for imparting education. Private educational institutions, as already stated, are not imparting education freely. They are collecting admission fees, donations, monthly tuition fees, examination fees, progress card fees and various fees, charges, donations etc. in various forms. In order to claim aid from the State, they have to show the shortage of funds, namely, excess expenditure over income. Educational institutions having sufficient means cannot seek aid in the guise of imparting education. It is suffice to state that the private educational institutions cannot claim aid from the State as a matter of right but they can only make a claim in that regard and it is for the Government to grant the same or not taking into consideration the various factors stated above. There is no fundamental or vested right to claim aid from the state. Aid is being provided by way of gratis. There is no fundamental or vested right to claim aid from the state. Aid is being provided by way of gratis. Rule 3 of the Code amply makes it clear that the grants payable by the Government are entirely discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right except the private recognised primary educational institutions to the extent of imparting education to the children upto the age limit of 14 years. ( 25 ) (I ). Even with regard to the discrimination alleged against the state in the matter of granting aid is concerned, we have to say that question of discrimination does not arise so far as grant of aid is concerned as the State cannot afford to give aid to all the private educational institutions. The grant of aid depends upon the State's resources, the fulfilment of the requirements under the Act, Rules, code and the Education Act, budgetary allocation etc. , in a particular academic year the State may grant aid to few educational institutions within the limits of allotment made in the budget for that purpose and in respect of the rest of the institutions it may defer consideration of granting aid for want of requisite funds. In such a situation, no institution can make a grievance of discrimination. (ii) Education is of two types. One is free and compulsory education to the children upto the age of 14 years, as envisages under Article 45 of the Constitution. The other is non-compulsory education. The State is mandated to provide free and compulsory education for the children upto the age of 14 years. In order to discharge this constitutional obligation the State has to take all measures to provide the same. But, it appears that no attempt is made by the State in that direction. When it is not imparting this free and compulsory education to all the eligible children, it has to allow the private educational institutions to discharge its duty. But, what the Government has done is it has stopped giving recognition to new schools and has not taken the responsibility of providing free education to the eligible children even in private schools. Consequently, the very constitutional object is defeated and parents of primary school children are forced to shoulder the burden of providing education with their hard earned money. But, what the Government has done is it has stopped giving recognition to new schools and has not taken the responsibility of providing free education to the eligible children even in private schools. Consequently, the very constitutional object is defeated and parents of primary school children are forced to shoulder the burden of providing education with their hard earned money. The State has to give aid to such primary educational institutions so that the fees, donations, charges etc. , payable by the parents could be eliminated or reduced to a considerable extent. This does not mean that all primary educational institutions can claim grant from the Government on the pretext that they are imparting education, which is the duty of the State. If not grant, atleast the State should bear the expenditure of education incurred for the children upto 14 years or could have reimbursed the amounts. If such a step is taken, it would amount to fulfilment of the Constitutional obligation under Article 45 of the constitution. Further, if recognition is granted and permission is given to new schools, there will be competition among such schools and such competition will provide good education on the one hand and the monetary burden on the parents would be reduced because if there are more number of schools, students would be admitted to such of the schools which impart good and quality education with less fees and donations. The State has not made any endeavour in this direction. By not doing so, the very constitutional object has been defeated and the State alone shall be responsible for this. (iii) In so far as the second type of education is concerned, the question of extending grant to the educational institutions which are imparting education at higher secondary and college level would be at the discretion of the State as provided in Rule 3 of the Code and it depends upon various other factors. Therefore, the private educational institutions cannot make a grievance of discrimination against the State in the matter of extending grant. However, if there is arbitrary discrimination, it is certainly open for the institutions to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief. ( 26 ) AS regards the entitlements of an educational institution admitted to grant to claim aid from the date of completion its eligibility. However, if there is arbitrary discrimination, it is certainly open for the institutions to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief. ( 26 ) AS regards the entitlements of an educational institution admitted to grant to claim aid from the date of completion its eligibility. period is concerned, our straight answer is in the negative for the simple reason that the completion of eligibility period will pave way for such an institution to put forth a claim for grant of aid from the date on which it has completed such period. Mere completion of eligibility period will not automatically entitle the institution to claim the aid from that date itself. It is only after completion of the eligibility period that an institution can put forth a claim for grant of aid, which will be considered in the light of the provisions contained in the code, the Education Act and such other criteria, including availability of funds in the budgetary allotment. The contention raised in this regard is wholly untenable. ( 27 ) ONE of the major issue involved in these batch of cases relates to financial aid to be provided to the teachers from the date of their appointment when such appointments are approved later by the Government. It is clear from the provisions of Rule 40 (ii) of the code that all appointments are subject to the approval of the department. The appointment of staff should be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Education Act as also the code in relation to educational qualifications, age, reservation quota etc. , and within the sanctioned strength. Normally the educational institutions appoint the staff and send them for approval of the department/government but the Government will not pass any orders thereon for a long time. The resultant position would be, the managements cannot keep the posts vacant awaiting approval of the Government for indefinite period. If they so await for the approval for a long time, the very purpose of imparting teaching education to students would be defeated without teaching staff and in the case of non-teaching staff, the day-to-day affairs of the educational institution will be jeopardised. Ultimately if the Government disapproves the appointment, the managements will remove the staff from service and again it causes inconvenience both the institution as also the students. Ultimately if the Government disapproves the appointment, the managements will remove the staff from service and again it causes inconvenience both the institution as also the students. If, on the other hand, the Government approves the appointment prospectively, the managements may refuse salary to the staff from the date of appointment upto the date of approval. In such an event the staff have to resort of legal proceedings. ( 28 ) IN order to avoid such a situation, we hold that grant of salary to the staff, whether teaching or non-teaching, would be from the date of admission of the institution to grant. If the institution is not admitted to grant or if admitted from a particular date, the managements shall pay the salary upto such date to the staff. In other words, once the appointment is approved, it will be effective from the date of appointment. If it is stated in the order of approval that such approval will be effective only prospective or from a particular date, the same is bad and it shall be treated that such a clause imposed in the order of approval is non-existent. ( 29 ) IT follows that if a private educational institution is admitted to grant and the appointment of any staff of such an institution is approved, the State is bound to release salary grant in respect of such staff. On the other hand, if the appointment of the staff is made by the managements contrary to the provisions of Code, Education act and the Rules or in excess of the strength prescribed or ineligible staff is appointed and such appointments are not approved by the government, it is the primary duty and responsibility of the management of such institution to pay the salary of such staff whose appointments have not been approved. The reason is, while making the appointment of staff, the managements ate duty bound to strictly adhere to the eligibility criteria, roster system, approved cadre strength and other relevant factors. If appointments are made deviating any of these or contrary to the provisions governing the appointment of staff, the managements have to bear the salary and other expenditure of such staff for the mistake committed by them. If appointments are made deviating any of these or contrary to the provisions governing the appointment of staff, the managements have to bear the salary and other expenditure of such staff for the mistake committed by them. ( 30 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the Writ Petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching of private educational institutions are dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty to them to avail the alternative remedy available under law. ( 31 ) THE Writ Petitions filed by the private educational institutions and the Writ appeals preferred by the State and its authorities are disposed of as above with modification of the order of the learned single Judge passed in the Writ Petitions and with the directions given below, ( 32 ) IN the light of what has been stated herein-above the following directions are issued to the State:- a) That the State may see the desirability of framing relevant rules for the fees, donations and charges that could be levied and collected by the private educational institutions as provided under section 145 (2) (xxxviii) of the Education Act within a period of three months from now: b) The State shall accord permission for starting of new school from the next academic year subject to fulfilment of the requirements in the Rules, Code and Education Act. c) The State shall reimburse the educational expenditure of the children upto the age of 14 years studying in private schools in order to fulfil the constitutional obligation under Article 45 of the constitution either to the parents directly it claimed by them or to the schools directly, in which event the concerned schools shall reimburse the amount to the parents. ( 33 ) IT is hoped that the State will seriously implement the above directions within a reasonable time. --- *** --- .