ORDER Heard the parties. This writ application has been filed by a Sanskrit School affiliated to the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board. It is a non-government school whose affiliation under the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is not in dispute. The grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the authorities of the State of Bihar in the department of Human Resources Development specially respondent no.3, the Special Director, Secondary Education, Bihar Patna as a result whereof a grant of Rs. 2,51,760/- released by the Union of India for disbursement to the petitioner's school for the financial year 1996-97 was withheld and allowed to lapse. The said grant was approved by the concerned authorities of the Union of India on an application filed by the petitioner in accordance with a Central Plan Scheme for development of Sanskrit education and modernisation of Sanskrit schools. Petitioner seeks an appropriate writ/order or direction to direct the respondents to release the aforesaid grant in favour of the petitioner and also for a direction to the concerned authorities of the State Government to forward the statement of accounts and the utilisation certificate in respect of grant for the year 1996-97 to the respondent Union of India particularly respondent no.4 so that those respondents may process and release grants-in-aid under the relevant scheme for the year 1997-98 and succeeding years. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted that the petitioner gave all the necessary details relating to the school in question as required by the respondents and thereupon the application of the petitioner was duly forwarded by the authorities of the State Government finding the particulars in the application in accordance with the requirement of the scheme. The authorities of the Union of India, respondent no.4 and 5 approved the grants-in-aid to the petitioner's under the Central plan scheme for modernisation of Sanskrit Pathsala for the year 1996-97. As required by the scheme the petitioner's school appointed five teachers in modern subjects like English, Science, Mathematics, Home Science and Music etc. The authorities of the Union of India, respondent no.4 and 5 approved the grants-in-aid to the petitioner's under the Central plan scheme for modernisation of Sanskrit Pathsala for the year 1996-97. As required by the scheme the petitioner's school appointed five teachers in modern subjects like English, Science, Mathematics, Home Science and Music etc. The respondent Union of India disbursed the amount in question by way of 100% assistance provided in the scheme but inspite of requests and reminders by the authorities of Union of India the authorities of the State Government did not send the Statement of accounts and utilisation certificate and withheld the payment of grant to the petitioner's school for arbitrary and irrelevant reasons. This ultimately led to filing of the instant writ application. The authorities of the State Government have not controverted the aforesaid material facts and it is admitted that the sanctioned amount was to be paid to the school by 31st. March, 1997 and the utilisation report was to be submitted by 31st December, 1997. According to respondent no.3, the Special Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna who has filed counter affidavit as well as several supplementary counter affidavits, the duly sanctioned and disbursed amount of grant-in-aid provided by the Government of India under the scheme in question for the year 1996-97 lapsed and was not paid to the petitioner on account of an enquiry and report by the District Education Officer, Banka. It is apparent from annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no.3 that the authorities of Union of India did not agree to extend the time for submission of utilisation certificate beyond 31st. March, 1998 and thereafter respondent no.3 through annexures E and F series asked the District Education Officer, Banka to submit a report after holding enquiry not with regard to actual appointment and working of teachers in the five subjects for which grant had been provided by the Union of India but regarding detailed working of the school, its present position and the number and qualification of its employees. Such report was asked for the first time on 26.3.98 when the grant was about to lapse. Even according to the extended time no report was available till the filing of the present writ application on 21.4.98. For special reasons the authorities of Union of India permitted the Education Department, Government of Bihar to utilise the grant up to 30.9.98. Such report was asked for the first time on 26.3.98 when the grant was about to lapse. Even according to the extended time no report was available till the filing of the present writ application on 21.4.98. For special reasons the authorities of Union of India permitted the Education Department, Government of Bihar to utilise the grant up to 30.9.98. A report from the District Education Officer, Banka dated 3rd. June, 1998 (annexure-1) gives the details of five teachers appointed in the school under the scheme in question. The report mentions that the newly appointed teachers in the five modern subjects were appointed pursuant to a local advertisement whose copy was also enclosed, However, in this report shortcoming in the said appointments were pointed out by mentioning' that the appointment should have been made after advertisement in the newspapers and the rules of reservation have been followed only in part. Annexure-G to the counter affidavit is the minutes of a committee constituted in pursuance of a policy decision of the Government dated 16.5.98 (annexure-H). The purpose of such committee was to forward the applications of the Sanskrit schools for grants-in-aid from the State Government under various schemes for development of Sanskrit education. Even before the constitution of the committee and its meeting dated 16.9.98 petitioner's application had already been forwarded and sanctioned by the Union of India but from annexure-J it appears that the committee took a decision to return the amount of grant sanctioned for the petitioner's schools on the following grounds: - (i) Appointments ought to have been made after advertisement in newspapers. (ii) Reservation rules have not been followed in totality. (iii) Newly appointed teachers in the subject of English and Mathematics were not trained. A fourth ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the posts in question in the modern subjects were not in accordance with staffing pattern prescribed by the State Government for such Sanskrit Schools. Learned counsel for the petitioner first contended that the grounds on which the respondents decided not to release the grant to the petitioner were are such which are not contemplated by the approved scheme of Union of India under which the petitioner applied for grants and the State of Bihar had forwarded the petitioner's application without such conditions and Union of India had approved the grant and made the necessary disbursement without conditions. Hence such grounds were not valid grounds in the eyes of law for depriving the petitioners school from receiving the grants-in-aid when admittedly the school had engaged/appointed teachers in the modern subjects and incurred liability to pay the teachers by relying upon provisions of the scheme and actions of the respondents. It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner that all the four grounds are without any substance and without any sanctity of law in so far as eligibility to receive the grants under the scheme is concerned. Elaborating this submission it was pointed out that by its nature the scheme for modernisation is an improvement upon the conventional staffing pattern of the State Government and the modern subjects in which appointments were made met the requirement of the scheme. In such circumstances there was no question of keeping the appointments within staffing pattern of the State Government for which the State Government provides separate grants-in-aid. With regard to rules of reservation it was submitted that for old non-government schools already enjoying affiliation under the Board there was no law requiring the private schools to follow the rules and policy of the government relating to reservation in the matters of appointment. It was further submitted in this regard that reservation of posts, even if required, is to be observed in making appointments to permanent posts and not in the matter of temporary posts and appointments meant to serve the purpose of various schemes which have been sanctioned for particular financial year only as there is no certainty as to how long scheme will continue. This argument was advanced also to meet the objection that the appointments were not made by advertisement in newspapers. Of course, the petitioner's stand on this issue is that there is no legal requirement of appointment by newspaper advertisement when the appointments in question is temporary in nature only to promote the present scheme of the Central Government. With regard to the remaining objection regarding teachers in two of the subjects not being trained it is submitted that there is no law requiring private Sanskrit schools to appoint only trained teachers even on the regular posts much-less against posts created only for the purpose of scheme in question. With regard to the remaining objection regarding teachers in two of the subjects not being trained it is submitted that there is no law requiring private Sanskrit schools to appoint only trained teachers even on the regular posts much-less against posts created only for the purpose of scheme in question. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned decision contained in Annexure-J has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without giving any opportunity of show cause to the petitioner although such order really has adverse effect upon the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed upon rules of 1993 contained in annexure-9 to submit that rule 4 provides staffing pattern for Sanskrit schools and for appointment of teachers and not-teaching employees as per the said staffing pattern, prevailing rules of reservation were required to be followed. For this purpose reliance was also placed upon a circular of the State Government dated 6.12.72. So far as the circular dated 6.12.72 is concerned it simply extends the reservation policy of the State in favour of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes to appointments in public undertakings of the State Government. Public Undertaking of the State Government cannot include non-government Sanskrit schools. So far as the rules of 1993 are concerned they are meant to govern approval/affiliation of Sanskrit Schools. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to Rule-I of Chapter-III of Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit High Schools (Service Condition) Rules 1976 (annexure-4) to submit that appointments except those by promotion are required to be made after proper advertisement in at east one prominent Hindi daily of the State. Only temporary appointments for a maximum period of three months can be by local advertisement. He also referred to and relied upon a circular dated 29th June, 1981 (annexure-R) to submit that teachers in such Sanskrit Schools like the petitioner (Madhyamik Sanskrit School) are required to be trained teachers. It is not in dispute that the so called rules of 1976 have no statutory force. The circular contained in annexure-R also does not have any statutory force. A perusal of the circular contained in annexure-R supports the case of the petitioner that there is no requirement of teachers of a Sanskrit School being trained teachers. From the provisions said circular itself it is quite clear that even untrained teachers are permitted to be appointed. The circular contained in annexure-R also does not have any statutory force. A perusal of the circular contained in annexure-R supports the case of the petitioner that there is no requirement of teachers of a Sanskrit School being trained teachers. From the provisions said circular itself it is quite clear that even untrained teachers are permitted to be appointed. As a fact after going through the circulars and the rules it is apparent that these are regulatory in nature and in the cases where they are not fully complied with, the effect may be only upon the affiliation/approval. As noticed earlier in the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner's school is affiliated to the Board and even for later year the respondents authorities have forwarded petitioner's application to the Union of India for different grants-in-aid. The provision for appointment after advertisement in a Hindi Newspaper does not find place in the Rules of 1993 (Annexure-q) or in any other rules framed under the provisions of Bihar Act no. 31/82 which was enacted to create the present Board and for governing Sanskrit Education in the State. In view of the materials and facts noticed above there does not appear to be any substance in any of the grounds taken by the respondents for withholding the sanctioned and disbursed grants meant for the petitioner's school. The question as to whether the grounds or objections raised by the respondents are valid in law or not are, in the facts of this case not necessary to be finally decided by this court because on facts it is found that such grounds are not relevant for the purpose of disbursement of the grant under the terms of the scheme of the Union of India. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard are found to be well founded. No such conditions were indicated to the petitioner's school by the authorities of the Union of India or even by the authorities of the State Government at the relevant time. Under the scheme the role of the State Government appears to be limited only to find out whether the school in question has appointed qualified persons during the relevant period to earn the grant for payment to such teachers. The only objection with regard to qualification of the appointed teachers was with regard to two of them being untrained. Under the scheme the role of the State Government appears to be limited only to find out whether the school in question has appointed qualified persons during the relevant period to earn the grant for payment to such teachers. The only objection with regard to qualification of the appointed teachers was with regard to two of them being untrained. On materials considered earlier it is found that there is no requirement in law that teachers in such Sanskrit School must be trained teachers. It is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner's school has appointed the required number of teachers in modern subjects and hence under the scheme and representation of the respondents the petitioner has earned the right to receive the necessary grant-in-aid as per promise and representation of the respondents. With regard to second contention advanced on behalf of petitioner, it is clear from the facts and law discussed above that even if the respondents authorities of the State of Bihar could raise an objection regarding appointment of teachers under the scheme as per reservation policy of the State Government such objection should have been communicated to the Petitioner’s school at the proper time by way of conditions so that if the petitioner was in a position to follow such directions it could have done so or if it found such directions to be without any authority of law it could have challenged the same in accordance with law. So far as all the three objections of the respondents is concerned they are prima facie found to be inapplicable and inappropriate for temporary appointments under the scheme in question which is by its nature a temporary scheme sanctioned from year to year. If the respondents desire to govern such appointments under the scheme by prescribing reasonable conditions that should be done well in advance and in clear terms so as to help the concerned Sanskrit schools to avail the grants-in-aid and promote the interest of Sanskrit Education which is the aim and object of central scheme. The action of the concerned authorities of State of Bihar as reflected by the facts of this case is not at all satisfactory and leaves much to be desired. The action of the concerned authorities of State of Bihar as reflected by the facts of this case is not at all satisfactory and leaves much to be desired. In such matters the private Sanskrit schools who are eligible for grants-in-aid and the authorities of the State Government are required to act in a spirit of cooperation and not to act in a spirit of confrontation. Even the last contention of the petitioner that the impugned decision contained in Annexure-J is in violation of principles of natural justice is found to be correct as no opportunity of show cause for hearing has been given to the petitioner before taking that decision which clearly has adverse effect upon the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons this application is allowed and the respondents/authorities of the Union of India are directed to make the grants of Rs. 2,50,760/- available to the authorities of the State Government who in turn are directed to release the said grant to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from today. The concerned authorities of the State Government are further directed to file the statement of accounts and the utilisation certificate in respect of grant for the year 1996-97 to the respondent no.4 so that the authorities of the Union of India may process and take a decision in accordance with law for release of grants-in-aid under the relevant scheme) to the petitioner school for the year 1997-98 and the succeeding years. For this purpose the concerned authorities shall keep in mind that delay in the matter is not attributable to the petitioner school. The later direction for the year 1997-98 and succeeding years should be complied with as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months as the matter has already been delayed on account of pendency of this writ application in this court for no fault of the petitioner. This writ application is allowed as indicated above and in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.