S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 20-8-1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 20563 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the writ petition, as amended, was allowed. ( 2 ) THE facts, shorn of unnecessary details, of the matter read thus: ( 3 ) THE Secretary and Correspondent of Bhatta Veeranna and Beeraka Nagaiah High School Committee and Society has filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs following: ". . . . . to issue a writ, in the nature of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to admit the un-aided posts, both teaching and non-teaching in the B. G. and B. K. Girls High School, Jandrapeta, Prakasam District, under the management of Bhatta Veeranna and Beeraka Nagaiah High School Committee, Jandrapet, Chirala Mandalam, to grant-in-aid with effect from the academic year 1988-89 and pay the same together with management grant; and pending disposal of the writ petition, direct the respondents to pay the grant-in-aid to the unaided posts, both teaching and non-teaching, in the B. G. and B. K. Girls High School, Jandrapet, under the management of Bhatta Veeranna and Beeraka Nagaiah High School, Jandrapet, Chirala Mandalam, Prakasam Dist. , and the Management Grant from the academic year 1995-96 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper. " ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted permission to the petitioner-Society vide G. O. Ms. No. 1474, Education, dated 24-5-1962 for starting a Co-education Aided School in Jandrapet and accordingly the school was established on 15-6-1962. The school was later upgraded as High School, permanent recognition by D. P. I, was granted in the year 1970 and it was admitted to grant-in-aid. From the year 1970-71 nineteen teaching and non-teaching posts were admitted to grant-in-aid and contingencies at 10% of the admitted expenditure was also allowed. Subsequently, the Government has granted permission for bifurcating the Girls High School viz. , B. G. and B. K. Girls High School vide G. O. Rt. From the year 1970-71 nineteen teaching and non-teaching posts were admitted to grant-in-aid and contingencies at 10% of the admitted expenditure was also allowed. Subsequently, the Government has granted permission for bifurcating the Girls High School viz. , B. G. and B. K. Girls High School vide G. O. Rt. No. 75, Education, dated 17-9-1989 and the Management has started running the school by shifting the girl students from the Co-education High School after duly fulfilling the requirements of A. P. Education Act and Rules, as also the directives of the authorities. The Government has also ratified the action of the Management, on being represented, in having bifurcated the Co-educational Institution into Boys High School and Girls High School during 1988-89 and issued G. O. Rt. No. 702, Education (PS-I) Department, dated 23-4-1994. ( 5 ) THE Management in its representation dated 18-6-1994 requested the Government for admission of unaided posts in the Girls High School in which the staff have been working since 1988-89 into grant-in-aid. The Director of School Education on being directed by the Government in its Memo No. l 156/ps-II/94-1, dated 11-7-1994 calling for remarks to give grant-in-aid to the school, called for a detailed report from the D. E. O. as to the eligibility for admission to grant-in-aid as per the rules and that led to inspection of the Institution by the District Level Committee constituted under the A. P. Private Educational Institutions Grand-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 and the D. E. O. has submitted proposals recommending for admission of the posts to grant-in-aid to the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur. The Joint Director, however, opined that the Girls High School, which was bifurcated in 1988-89, is not eligible for grant-in-aid. Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Director the petitioner-Society has filed the writ petition. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents resisting the writ petition inter alia on the ground that it is premature in nature inasmuch as the proposals submitted by the D. E. O. , Ongole were forwarded by the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur along with his remarks to the Director of School Education, Hyderabad and they are pending scrutiny by the Director and thereafter they will be placed before the High Level Committee which will decide whether the petitioner s school has to be admitted to grant-in-aid or not. ( 7 ) ON 21-4-1998, the learned single Judge while considering the question as to whether B. G. and B. K. Girls High School is a new Institution opened during 1988-89 or is it part and parcel of the earlier school which was already admitted to grant-in-aid and bifurcated to facilitate the girl students, directed: having heard Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel representing the petitioner-society and Sri Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate-General for the respondents, I am of the view that it is better to await a decision of the State Government on the representation dated 18-6-1994. When the Government have called for the views of the Director of School Education, the concerned authorities at every level appear to have bestowed their attention and proposals are likely to be placed before a High Level Committee constituted under A. P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988. I laving regard to the stage at which the matter stands, it is not proper for this Court to dwelve upon the merits and on the contrary, it would be sufficient in the interest of justice to direct the High Level Committee to dispose of the proposals before on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and respondent No. 1 in turn is directed to dispose of the representation dated 18-6-1994 before the reopening of Courts after summer vocation and submit a report to this Court on or before 12-6-1998. Post the writ petition for further directions on 12-6-1998. ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the directions of the learned single Judge, the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed an order in G. O. Ms. No. 13, Education (P. S. 2) Department, dated 12-5-1999 directing the petitioner to distribute the posts based on the strength as on 1988-89 and submit fresh proposals for transfer of aided and un-aided posts on a notional basis which were in existence as on 1988-89 in the co-educational school for the issuance of necessary orders in the matter. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Government Order, the petitioner-Society filed an affidavit along with W. P. M. P. No. 14201 of 1999 seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Government Order, the petitioner-Society filed an affidavit along with W. P. M. P. No. 14201 of 1999 seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. In the said affidavit, the petitioner states that pursuant to the order dated 21-4-1998 passed by the learned single Judge, the Government instead of submitting a factual report to this Court, as directed, has issued G. O. Ms. No. 13 dated 12-5-1999 and there is no justification for the Government to issue such a direction. According to the petitioner, the Government is fully aware that there are no excess posts in the former co-education school and the present boys school. The fact that posts were sanctioned to the girls school and additional sections and additional posts were also sanctioned to the girls school and also to the boys school subsequent to 1988-89 and seven additional posts in the boys school were admitted to grant-in-aid in the year 1992 would clearly establish that there are no posts either aided or unaided available in the former co-education school as on 1988-89 or subsequently for transferring the same to the girls sections. The petitioner, therefore, sought permission of the Court to amend the prayer in the writ petition as: to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring G. O. Ms. No. 13, Education (P. S. 2) Department, dated 12-5-1999 as illegal and void and direct the respondents to admit the un-aided posts, both teaching and non-teaching in the BG and BK Girls High School, Jandrapet, Prakasam District, under the management of Bhatta Veeranna and Beeraka Nagaiah High School Committee, Jandrapet, Chirala Mandalam, to grant-in-aid with effect from the academic year 1988-89 with effect from the academic year 1988-89 and pay the same together with Management Grant. ( 10 ) THE respondents, however, have denied the allegations made in W. P. M. P. No. 14201 of 1999 and opposed amendment of prayer in the main writ petition. ( 11 ) THE learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition as amended, held: this matter was considered by this Court on an earlier occasion and an elaborate order was passed on 21-4-1998 and necessary directions were issued to the respondents. As a follow up measure, this order is being passed. Pursuant to the said directions, G. O. Ms. ( 11 ) THE learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition as amended, held: this matter was considered by this Court on an earlier occasion and an elaborate order was passed on 21-4-1998 and necessary directions were issued to the respondents. As a follow up measure, this order is being passed. Pursuant to the said directions, G. O. Ms. No. 13, Education, dated 12-5-1999 is issued. The matter is re-heard and Sri E. Manohar, learned senior Counsel reiterating his stand in the main writ petition contended that the G. O. has to be struck down for the reason that it is violative of a constitutional obligation on the part of the Government to provide free education facilities to the girls. It is true that a reading of the G. O. lantamounts to such a violation so much so that the petitioner is being directed to undertake an exercise which has already been done in the earlier affidavit. The staff requirements relating to 1988-89 i. e. . pre-bifurcation period are set out and the requirements of post-bifurcation Institutions, one for the boys and another for the girls, are also furnished. I am satisfied that the claim is merited and without any hesitation the High Level Committee should have approved the same and granted aided posts to the Institution as sought for. I have taken into consideration the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate-General who has no doubt supported the stand taken by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 143, Education, dated 12-5-1999, but he has left the matter to the discretion of this Court. The discretion in such matters is to be exercised in a judicious manner. It must be born-in-mind that constitutional guarantees to the women in regard to education cannot be overlooked. When there is a duty cast upon the State to provide all the facilities for free education of women, the claim in the writ petition is only a relief in that direction and the same is quite reasonable and hence writ petition as amended is allowed. It is made clear that this may not be treated as precedent. There will be no order as to costs. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the learned single Judge dated 20-8-1999, has preferred this writ appeal. It is made clear that this may not be treated as precedent. There will be no order as to costs. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the learned single Judge dated 20-8-1999, has preferred this writ appeal. ( 13 ) IN the above factual background, the only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is as to whether a positive direction as has been given by the learned single Judge could be issued. ( 14 ) IT is not in dispute that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, and the rules, made thereunder and the grants-in-aid Code govern the matter relating to grant-in-aid. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has enacted Act No. 22 of 1988 viz. , the Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 ( the Act for brevity) to regulate the payment of grant-in-aid to the Private Educational Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act read: "3. Regulation of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in G. O. Ms. No. 238, Education (SSE) Department, dated the 27th May, 1986 and G. O. Ms. No. 424, Education (CE) Department, dated the 19th September, 1985 (a) no private educational institution other than a college established after the 1st April, 1977 and existing on the 1st September, 1985 and no private college established after the 1st April, 1977 and existing on the 1st March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid unless the Committee constituted in G. O. Rt. No. 220, Education (SSE-1) Department, dated the 24th February, 1988 recommends that it may be admitted to grant-in-aid; and (b) no private educational institution other than a college which has been established after the 1st September, 1985 and no private college which has been established after 1st March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. (2) A private educational institution referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in favour of which the Committee recommends the release of grant-in-aid shall be entitled to such grant only from the date it satisfies all the conditions for admission to grant-in-aid specified in the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (Act 1 of 1982) and the rules, made thereunder the grants-in-aid Code and the orders and other instructions issued by the Government from lime to time in this behalf. 4. 4. Release of grant-in-aid in respect of certain additional sections and posts:- notwithstanding anything contained in. G. O. Ms. No. 344, Education (SSE) Department, dated 22nd July, 1985, no school admitted to grant-in-aid prior to the 1st April, 1977 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid with respect to any additional sections opened or posts created after the 1st April, 1977 unless the Committee constituted in G. O. Rt. No. 220, Education (SSE-1) Department, dated the 24th February, 1988 recommends the release of grant-in-aid in respect of such additional sections and posts. " ( 15 ) HAVING regard to the fact situation obtaining in the present case, Section 3 of the Act has no application. Section 4 provides that unless the Committee constituted in G. O. Rt. No. 220, Education (SSE-1) Department, dated 24-2-1988 recommends the release of grant-in-aid, in respect of such additional sections and posts, no school admitted to grant-in-aid shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid with respect to any additional sections or posts created after 1-4-1977. Admittedly, on 18-4-1992, the Director of School Education vide Proceedings in Lr. Dis. No. 3562/dl-2/ 90 has accorded teaching and non-teaching posts without aid and the School Committee has made a request for grant-in-aid on 18-6-1994. The District Educational Officer in terms of his tetter Rc. No. 10057/ B2/94, dated 1-10-1994 forwarded the proposal of the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh to the Regional Joint Director, School Education, Guntur. Pursuant to the Proceedings in Lr. Dis. No. 5097/b1/ 94, dated 21-1-1995 issued by the Regional joint Director, while re-submitting the proposals for admission of the school into grant-in-aid, vide letter dated 24-2-1995, the D. E. O. has certified that the school has fulfilled all the conditions required under the Andhra Pradesh Educational Rules Grant-in-aid Code and other orders issued from time to time and asked the Regional Joint Director to consider the proposals and submit the same to the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for taking further action in the matter. No order, however, thereupon had been passed. In that situation, the petitioner-Society filed the writ petition and the learned single Judge has passed the order dated 21-4-1998 as noticed supra. ( 16 ) PURSUANT to the order of the learned single Judge G. O. Ms. No order, however, thereupon had been passed. In that situation, the petitioner-Society filed the writ petition and the learned single Judge has passed the order dated 21-4-1998 as noticed supra. ( 16 ) PURSUANT to the order of the learned single Judge G. O. Ms. No. 13, Education (P. S. 1i) Department, dated 12-5-1999 was issued inter alia stating that government after examining the recommendations of the High Level Committee and after review the entire issue noticed that the management of the school have not submitted the proposals for transferring the existing aided and un-aided posts sanctioned to B. V. and B. N. (Coeducation) high School to the two schools i. e. , B. V. and B. N. Boys High School, and B. G. and B. K. Girls High School, taking the stock of all the aided and unaided posts. Instead of doing so the management has submitted proposals on the name of B. G. and B. K. Girls High School ( in the name of new High School as permitted in G. O. Rt. No. 75, Education Department, dated 17-1-1989) and requested to treat this school as a bifurcated school from the B. V. and B. N. High School and sought for admission of all unaided posts in the school into grant-in-aid. The Government after careful examination of the matter and the recommendations of High Level Committee hereby direct the management of the B. G. and B. K. Girls High School to distribute the posts based on the strength as on 1988-89 and submit fresh proposals for transfer of aided and unaided posts on a notional basis which were in existence as on 1988-89 in B. V. and B. N. High School ( Co-education) to B. V. and B. N. (Boys) and B. G. and B. K. Girls High School through the competent authority for issue of necessary orders in the matter. ( 17 ) THE respondents herein filed an affidavit in the writ petition on 12-6-1999 stating: i submit that the posts that were admitted to grant-in-aid during 1987-88 in the coeducation school were not sufficient and this was the reason why after 1988-89 when girls sections were started additional posts exclusively meant for girls sections were sanctioned. ( 17 ) THE respondents herein filed an affidavit in the writ petition on 12-6-1999 stating: i submit that the posts that were admitted to grant-in-aid during 1987-88 in the coeducation school were not sufficient and this was the reason why after 1988-89 when girls sections were started additional posts exclusively meant for girls sections were sanctioned. At that time the teacher and pupil ratio was 1:45 and the aided and the unaided posts which continued in the former co-education school were not even sufficient for the boys sections as the strength in the boys school was more than the ratio of the teachers. Even subsequent to 1988-89 upto date the same situation exists in the former co-education school, which is a boys school since then. Hence the question of transferring any aided or unaided posts from the former co-education school to the bifurcated girls sections/school does not arise. ( 18 ) THE learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the writ petitioner was not entitled to any grant-in-aid as the school was started after 1-9-1985 in terms of the original writ petition. However, the prayer in the writ petition was amended questioning G. O. Ms. No. 13, dated 12-5-1999 as aforementioned. In the aforementioned situation, the learned Additional Advocate-General contends that the impugned judgment could not have been passed. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Advocate-General has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Government of A. P. v. V. S. S, High School, 1989 (2) ALT 151 and a judgment of the Apex Court in Government of A. P, v. G. V-K. Girls High School, AIR 2000 SC 2651 . ( 19 ) MR. E. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the authorities having allowed the Coeducation school to be bifurcated, it cannot be said that the girls school was started after 1-9-1985. The learned Counsel would contend that keeping in view the fact that additional posts were sanctioned in the year 1992, G. O. Ms. No. 13 dated 12-5-1999 could not have been issued by the Government. Grant-in-aid, contends the learned Counsel, should be extended to all schools, keeping in view the sovereign duties of a State. The learned Counsel would contend that keeping in view the fact that additional posts were sanctioned in the year 1992, G. O. Ms. No. 13 dated 12-5-1999 could not have been issued by the Government. Grant-in-aid, contends the learned Counsel, should be extended to all schools, keeping in view the sovereign duties of a State. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Manuhhai Pragaji Vashi, (1995) 5 SCC 730 at 737 and Chandigarh Administration v, Rajni Vali, 2000 (2) ALD 33 (SC) = (2000) 2 SCC 42 . ( 20 ) NOW, the only question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether a writ in the nature of mandamus, in the aforementioned situation, could be issued. ( 21 ) HAVING regard to the fact that in terms of G. O. Rt. No. 702, Education (P. S.-1) Department, dated 23-4-1994, the school was allowed to be bifurcated, it cannot be said that the school had been started after 1-9-1985. The material portion of the said G. O. reads: having examined the matter carefully in consultation with the Director of School Education, the Government rescind the orders issued in G. O. Rt. No. 75, Edn. , dated 17-1-1989, and ratify the action of the Management in having bifurcated the B. V. and B. N. High School (Co-education) into Boys High School and Girls High School during 1988-89. ( 22 ) IN the aforementioned situation, Section 4 of the Act (referred supra) would apply. No positive direction, in our opinion, therefore could have been issued. ( 23 ) IN V. S. S. High School (supra), Jeevan Reddy, J. (as he then was) speaking for a Division Bench of this Court considering the provisions of the Act, held: it is also necessary to point out that Section 21 of the A. P. Education Act did not confer any right upon the concerned institutions to be admitted to grant-in-aid, or to receive grant-in-aid. Section 21 of the A. P. Education Act deals with "grant, or withdrawal of recognition of institutions imparting education. " The only provision in the said section which refers to, or speaks of grant-in-aid, is sub-section (4), which says that unless an educational institution is recognised under the Act, it shall not be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid, or other financial assistance from the State. " The only provision in the said section which refers to, or speaks of grant-in-aid, is sub-section (4), which says that unless an educational institution is recognised under the Act, it shall not be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid, or other financial assistance from the State. What we are trying to emphasize is that the right to be admitted to grant-in-aid, or to receive grant-in-aid, arose in favour of the private institutions concerned herein only under, and by virtue of the said three G. Os. They were entitled to be admitted to grant-in-aid only if they complied with, and satisfied the several conditions prescribed in the concerned G. Os. among the three G. Os. To these conditions was added another condition by the impugned enactment with retrospective effect, and until and unless that condition also is satisfied, there can be no question of any institution claiming a right to be admitted to grant-in-aid, or claiming to be entitled to receive grant-in-aid. ( 24 ) IN G. V. K. Girls High School (supra) the Apex Court held that the right to get grant-in-aid depends upon satisfaction of the conditions therefor. The Apex Court observed:. . . . The right to arrears thus flows from the statutes and the Committee s recommendations and not from any Government Orders. In other words, the basic right to receive arrears does not stem from any Government Order in respect of the schools enumerated in GO 326 (Ed.) dated 17-10-1989 read with GO 178 (Ed.) dated 23-7-1990. The right stems from Act 1/82 and Act 22/82 and the findings of the Committee. . . . . ( 25 ) IN Manubhai Pragaji Vashi (supra) the Apex Court was considering as to whether a private law college is entitled to grant-in-aid. The Apex Court held that Private Law College could not be denied the benefit of grant-in-aid on the ground of paucity of funds. ( 26 ) IN Rajni Vali (supra) the Apex Court held: the position has to be accepted as well settled that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. ( 26 ) IN Rajni Vali (supra) the Apex Court held: the position has to be accepted as well settled that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. In line with this principle, the State has enacted statutes and framed rules and regulations to control/ regulate establishment and running of private schools at different levels. The State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. It needs no emphasis that appointment of qualified and efficient teachers is a sine qua non for maintaining high standards of teaching in any educational institution. Keeping in mind these and other relevant factors this Court in a number of cases has intervened for setting right any discriminatory treatment meted out to teaching and non-teaching staff of a particular institution or a class of institutions. In the said case, the Apex Court was considering as to whether same salary and dearness allowance should be paid to the teachers of the school in question on par with the private recognized aided schools in Chandigarh, especially when the other members of the staff/teachers teaching upto 10th class are receiving the scales sanctioned for the posts against which they are working. The Apex Court answered the said question in affirmative stating: coming to the contention of the appellants that the Chandigarh Administration will find it difficult to bear the additional financial burden if the claim of Respondents 1 to 12 is accepted, we need only say that such a contention raised in different cases of similar nature has been rejected by this Court. The State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources. It is for the authorities running the administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose. We do not deem it necessary to consider this question in further detail. The contention raised by the appellants in this regard is rejected. It is for the authorities running the administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose. We do not deem it necessary to consider this question in further detail. The contention raised by the appellants in this regard is rejected. It is, however, clarified that the proportion in which the additional burden will be shared by the Chandigarh Administration and the Management of the School will be in accordance with the grant-in-aid scheme applicable to the school from time to time. The judgment of the High Court that the sharing of the financial burden will in the ratio of 95% to 5% is modified accordingly. ( 27 ) THE State in a situation of this nature cannot deny its liability to give grant-in-aid. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appropriate Committee must consider the question at the first instance. It is not for this Court to issue any direction which would be contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act. The decisions relied on by Mr. Manohar nowhere suggest that grant-in-aid can be directed to be granted, without fulfilling the statutory conditions. The learned single Judge, unfortunately, has issued a positive direction only on the ground that the State has a duty to impart education. The responsibility of the State in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 2192 , is in relation to the children upto the age of 14 years. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellants herein are, however, directed to consider the matter afresh, having regard to the recommendations made by the District Educational Officer, in the light of the observations made by the Director of School Education, as noticed supra. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.