Per MARLAPALLE B.H., J.:---At the outset we have no hesitation to observe that we fell in error in not setting out the reasoning in support of our order dated 23rd of April, 1999 which was quashed and set aside by the Apex Court and this petition is taken up on its restoration. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of teachers of non-aided polytechnics whereas petitioner Nos. 2 to 31 are the members of teaching and non-teaching staff of Shri Sant Gadge Baba Polytechnic, Bhuswal which is run by the Hindi Seva Mandal, Bhusawal (respondent No. 1). They came to be employed under the said polytechnic (respondent No. 2) from time to time between 1984 to 1997 on consolidated salary. They claim that the Directorate of Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra issued communication dated 29th of September, 1995, addressed to all the Principals of the private un-aided technical colleges/polytechnic/institutions calling upon them to pay the salaries and allowances, bonus, provident fund, gratuity, medical facilities and leave travel facilities etc. as per the rules framed from time to time. It was made clear in the said communication that it was obligatory on the part of the institutions to comply with these directives in view of the conditions set out while granting permission to start such institutions and failure to comply with these instructions would entail necessary action. The petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation on 3rd November, 1998 and requested the respondent No. 2 to pay the salary and other allowances as per the circular issued by the Directorate of Technical Education on 29th September, 1995. As there was no response from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a representation was submitted to respondent No. 4 on 10th September, 1998 and finally the petitioners approached this Court in the instant petition filed on 15th December, 1998. The substantial prayer in the petition reads, as under :- "(c) Writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ, Direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be issued directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to the teaching and non-teaching staff including the petitioners Nos. The substantial prayer in the petition reads, as under :- "(c) Writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ, Direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be issued directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to pay to the teaching and non-teaching staff including the petitioners Nos. 2 to 31 pay and allowances and other service benefits such as bonus, travelling allowances/medical facilities, provident fund, gratuity and leave benefits as per the instructions issued in the Circular/Letter dated 29th September, 1995 issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai including the arrears of pay and allowances since the dates of their initial appointments;" We disposed of the petition by the following order dated 23rd April, 1999 : "College states that it is not in position to pay the salaries of teachers as per the pay scales prescribed by the Government. It is contended that college is a non-aided college. However, college is recognised. Hence we direct college to pay salary, including D.A. as per pay scale prescribed by the Government particularly in view of the fact that at the time of obtaining recognition the college has given undertaking to comply with all conditions including payment as per the scale prescribed by the Government." 3. As this order was not implemented by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the petitioners approached us in Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1999 and by order dated 5th July, 1999 a Division Bench of this Court had directed the Director of Technical Education to hold inquiry and the management was directed not to undertake any new admissions to engineering colleges and technical schools in the academic year 1999-2000. This direction was given in view of the statement made in the petition that it was not in a position to pay salaries of the staff as per the pay scales prescribed by the Government. The petitioners then moved Contempt Petition No. 132 of 1999 which came to be admitted by order dated 6th July, 1999. The order dated 23rd April, 1999 passed by us (Kapadia and Marlappalle, JJ.) came to be challenged in S.L.P. (C) No. 9783 of 1999 and the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1999 by another Division Bench (Barde and Mhase, JJ.) on 5th July, 1999 came to be challenged in S.L.P (C) No. 10603 of 1999. The order dated 23rd April, 1999 passed by us (Kapadia and Marlappalle, JJ.) came to be challenged in S.L.P. (C) No. 9783 of 1999 and the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1999 by another Division Bench (Barde and Mhase, JJ.) on 5th July, 1999 came to be challenged in S.L.P (C) No. 10603 of 1999. By order dated 10th August, 1999 interim stay to our order was passed by the Apex Court and S.L.P. No. 10603 of 1999 came to be dismissed as not pressed as per the order dated 10th of May, 2000. Whereas, by order dated 28th of March, 2001 the Civil Appeal No. 6225 of 2000, arising out of S.L.P. No. 9783 of 1999 has been disposed of. Portion of the said order, which is relevant for deciding the instant petition is quoted, as under : "....... The Directorate of Technical Education issued a letter dated 29th September, 1995 addressed to the Management of unaided Engineering Technical, Pharmacy, Architecture, Catering, Computer Sciences, Management Educational Programmes informing that they are bound to pay the salary, allowances, bonus, travelling allowances, medical facilities, insurance, death or retirement gratuity as per the directions issued by the Government from time to time. This condition is part of the conditions imposed at the time of permitting the institutions to start their courses, which is disputed by the management. Two questions would crop up for consideration as to whether such a direction could be issued without any statutory authority, and whether such a direction could be enforceable for issuance of a mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. This would necessarily mean that the source of the power conferring the authority to issue the letter has to be looked into, and further whether in fact an undertaking had been given, and if so, what would be the effect for non-compliance of the undertaking as well as whether the undertaking in question could be enforced so far as the payment of salary is concerned, all have to be examined. The impugned judgment, on the face of it, shows that the High Court has not considered all these aspects. The impugned judgment, on the face of it, shows that the High Court has not considered all these aspects. Under these circumstances, we think it appropriate to quash the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for re-consideration and re-disposal of the writ petitions after considering the submissions made by the rival parties, namely, the management, the employees as well as the State Government, and also A.I.C.T.E., as the institution appears to be Polytechnic Institution. ......" 4. The respondent No. 1 had filed an affidavit in reply on 23rd March, 1999 opposing the petition and it had contended that (a) the petition was not maintainable as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; (b) the petitioners had accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment order at the time of joining and, therefore, they were estopped from claiming salary over and above what was stated in the appointment orders; (c) the circular dated 29th September, 1995 could not be treated as binding and such circulars are issued by the Government under its administrative power and not as sovereign and constitutional power, (d) no directions could be given by this Court for implementing the circular dated 29th September, 1995 issued by the respondent No. 4, (e) the financial capacity of the institution did not permit it to implement the directions given in the circular dated 29th September, 1995 and if such directions are given the respondent No. 2 college would be forced to close down; (f) none of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 31 are having the requisite qualifications and, therefore, they could not claim the pay scales and other allowances as prescribed by the A.I.C.T.E. or the Government of Maharashtra, and (g) in any case the respondent management was paying the basic pay scales and dearness allowance at 40% of the rates as prescribed even though initially the appointment orders stated that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated salary. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an additional affidavit in reply and raised additional grounds to oppose the petition. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed an additional affidavit in reply and raised additional grounds to oppose the petition. It has been submitted that the Government instructions regarding revision of pay are not binding on the management and the Central Government vide letter dated 16th August, 1996 had informed the institutions that all regular employees should be given a minimum of 2/3rd of the payment which the Government offers to their employees and the said approach requires to be followed in the case of private un-aided polytechnics. The management reiterated that he has not given any undertaking to implement the pay scales prescribed by the Government for the teaching and non-teaching employees working in polytechnics. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the management has also taken up an additional ground viz. the belated approach of the petitioners to this Court. 6. Assistant Director, Technical Education has filed return on behalf of the respondent State Authorities. It is stated that vide Government Resolution dated 21st May, 1983 all technical colleges, including polytechnics run by any agency, either aided or un-aided, were required to abide by the Rules and Regulations issued by the Government of Maharashtra or by the Director of Technical Education from time to time. The respondent No. 1 was granted permission to open a polytechnic during the academic year 1983-84 vide order dated 22nd July, 1983 and subsequently the Government of India enacted the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. Pursuant to the said Act the A.I.C.T.E. grants permission to technical colleges with the concurrence of the concerned State Government under section 10 of the said Act and it is responsible for prescribing the specific norms and standards, including pay scales and service conditions of the teaching staff so as to maintain the qualitative standard of education all over the country. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 derives his authority to issue directions to such institutions under section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (M.E.P.S. Act, for short) and it is not permissible in law for a private un-aided technical or non-technical institute to contend that it was not liable to pay salaries as per the pay scales prescribed by the Government in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (K. Krishnamacharyulu and other v. Shri Venkateshwara College of Engineering and others)1, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 295. The private education institutes like the polytechnic come within the ambit of the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have the authority to issue instructions/directions to such institutes to pay the salaries as per the prescribed rates. In short, it is contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are required to pay the salaries and other allowances as prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra or the A.I.C.T.E., to the petitioners. 7. So far as the point of belated approach to this Court is concerned, we note that the said ground is unsustainable as the petitioners have sought directions to implement the instructions given by the Government of Maharashtra vide circular dated 29th September, 1995 and, thereafter, representations have been made to the management as well as to the respondent No. 4 in 1998. As there was no response from either of them, the petitioners approached this Court. 8. Regarding the qualifications of the petitioners it has been contended by the management that in addition to the first class graduation degree in engineering the petitioners must have passed the All India Examination such as GATE or equivalent and none of the petitioners fulfil these qualifications. The letter dated 30th December, 1999 issued by the All Indian Council for Technical Education is placed before us and alongwith it there is a notification issued by the A.I.C.T.E. regarding revised pay scales and service conditions for the teaching and non-teaching employees in polytechnics. The minimum qualificational requirement for appointment to the post of Lecturer, as per the said notification, is first class Bachelor's decree in appropriate branch of engineering/technology or first class Master's degree in appropriate branch for teaching posts in humanities and sciences. In addition there is no requirement of formal teaching experience. The minimum qualificational requirement for appointment to the post of Lecturer, as per the said notification, is first class Bachelor's decree in appropriate branch of engineering/technology or first class Master's degree in appropriate branch for teaching posts in humanities and sciences. In addition there is no requirement of formal teaching experience. The petitioners have also invited our attention to an advertisement released by the respondent No. 1 in the Marathi Newspaper "Lokmat" dated 21st August, 1999 for the post of Lecturer and other staff and we have noted that there is no requirement of passing a qualifying All India Examination like the GATE. 9. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 themselves admitted that, after the enactment of the A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987 it is the A.I.C.T.E. which grants recognition and such a recognition has been granted to respondent No. 2 on year to year basis. One such order dated 16th of August, 1999, granting recognition for the academic years 1999-2001 has been brought on record. When the A.I.C.T.E., a body created by an Act of Parliament, has granted recognition in favour of respondent No. 2 an inference will have to be drawn that the said body had examined the qualifications of the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as availability of the infrastructure before the order of recognition was passed and such an order of recognition would be a conclusive proof that the respondent No. 2 had employed qualified teachers and other non-teaching staff. The defence that the petitioners though being not qualified for the posts they were appointed is, thus, without any basis. 10. The financial capacity of the private institutes to pay the salaries and other allowances to their employees has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of (Chandigar Administration and others v. Mrs. Rajni Vali and others)2, J.T. 2000(1) S.C. 159. On referring to its earlier decisions in the case of (Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others etc. v. State of Haryana and others etc.)3, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1663, (Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana others)4, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 968 and (State of Harayana and another v. Ram Chander and another)5, J.T. 1997(5) S.C. 217, the Supreme Court held that the difficulty of additional financial burden faced by the management cannot be a reason to deny the parity in salary. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, on this issue, has rightly relied upon our decisions in the case of (Raskar Vidya Damodhar @ Mrs. Bhujbal Vidya v. Maharashtra Arogyamandal and others)6, 2001(2) Bom.C.R. 284 : 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 129 and (Sunanda Pandharinath Adhav and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)7, 2001(1) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)809 : 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 167 . On this point, we must also note the clarifications given by the State Government in its return. Though the State Government had initially directed the implementation of Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations with effect from 1st January, 1996 vide Government Resolution dated 18th of December, 1999, by a subsequent Government Resolution dated 4th of October, 2000 the Government directed that the scheme of revision of pay scales, declared vide Government Resolution dated 18th December, 1999 should be made applicable to the teachers, librarians and instructors of physical education in the unaided engineering colleges and other equivalent institutions of technical education, including Architecture and Pharmacy at degree and equivalent level with effect from 1st August, 2000. As the financial burden on the unaided private managements was drastically hiked due to the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendations, the Government of Maharashtra revised the fees payable to such colleges for the academic year 2000-2001 onwards and while working out the fees structure, the committee constituted by the Government has considered each and every financial liability of such private managements. In fact, the rate of fees so fixed by the State Government is already under challenge by the students and the petitioners are pending. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Government of Maharashtra being alive to the increased financial burden on such unaided private managements, has taken necessary steps to hike the fees payable by the students so as to ensure that the financial resources at the disposal of these managements do meet the requirements of the financial liabilities. Alongwith the return filed by the Assistant Director, the letter dated 2nd June, 2000 issued by respondent No. 4 has been brought on record which indicates the revised rates of fees as applicable to the polytechnics. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the respondent management cannot take shelter of financial incapacity. 11. Alongwith the return filed by the Assistant Director, the letter dated 2nd June, 2000 issued by respondent No. 4 has been brought on record which indicates the revised rates of fees as applicable to the polytechnics. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the respondent management cannot take shelter of financial incapacity. 11. Regarding the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others)8, 1989(2) S.C.C. 691 wherein the Supreme Court, in para 22, held thus : "22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: "to be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by character, common law, custom or even contract". We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition." 12. This issue was also answered in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court which has been relied upon by the petitioners i.e. "K. Krishnamacharyulu and others (supra). We, therefore, over rule the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. 13. We now come to decide the two factors, as set out in the order passed by the Apex Court viz. whether a direction could be issued by the respondent No. 4 vide communication dated 29th September, 1975 without any statutory authority and whether such a direction could be enforceable for issuance of a mandamus under Article 226 of the constitution. We now come to decide the two factors, as set out in the order passed by the Apex Court viz. whether a direction could be issued by the respondent No. 4 vide communication dated 29th September, 1975 without any statutory authority and whether such a direction could be enforceable for issuance of a mandamus under Article 226 of the constitution. To decide these issues, we are required to examine the source of the power conferring the authority in respondent No. 4 to issue the letter dated 29th September, 1995 and further, whether an undertaking was given by the respondent No. 1 and if so what would be the effect for non-compliance of the undertaking as well as whether the undertaking in question could be enforced so far as the payment of salary is concerned. 14. The petitioners had stated the source of authority behind the circular dated 29th September, 1995 firstly by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "K. Krishnamacharyulu" (supra) and secondly on the basis of the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5264 of 1996 in the case of "Smt. Premlata Chavan Polytechnic, Karad". By an interim order dated 22nd October, 1996 this Court had directed the management in that petition to pay salaries in accordance with the pay scales prescribed by the State Government and this order came to be challenged in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22752 of 1996. The S.L.P. was dismissed by the Apex Court on 2nd December, 1997. 15. The Government of Maharashtra enacted the M.E.P.S. Act and under section 16 of the said Act, the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 have been framed. Section 2(5) defines the term "Deputy Director" and it means the Deputy Director of Education, the Deputy Director of Technical Education, the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training or as the case may be, the Deputy Director of Art appointed as such by the State Government for the respective region or area. Clause (6) of section 2 defines the term "Director" and it means the Director of Education or the Director of Technical Education or the Director of Vocational Education and Training or the Director of Art as the case may be appointed as such by the State Government. Section 2(12) defines the term "management" and in relation to a school it means (a) .... (b) .... Section 2(12) defines the term "management" and in relation to a school it means (a) .... (b) .... and (c) in any other case, the person or body of persons whether incorporated or not and by whatever name called, administering such school. The term "private school" has been defined in section 2(20) and it means a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the Government or a local authority. The term "school" as defined, initially did not include in its sweep the technical or vocational institutions/colleges and, therefore, this Court in Writ Petition No. 2719 of 1984 in the case of (Shri P.D. Prabhudesai v. Principal, M.T.E. Society's Walchand College of Engineering, Vishrambaug at Sangli)9, had held that a polytechnic did not fall within the definition of school. The Government of Maharashtra, therefore, amended the definition of the term "school" by Maharashtra 32 of 1990 and the said term, as defined now in section 2(24) reads, thus : "School means a primary school, secondary school, higher secondary school, junior college of education or any other institution by whatever name called, including technical, vocation or Art institution or part of any such school, college or institution, which imparts general, technical, vocation, Art or as the case may be special education or training in any faculty or discipline or subject below the degree level." 16. It is, thus, clear that all the educational institutions which are running courses below the degree level are included within the term "school" as defined under the M.E.P.S. Act. Section 3(1) of the said M.E.P.S. Act states that its provisions shall apply to all private schools in the State of Maharashtra, whether receiving any grant in aid from the State Government or not. In the case of (Shailaja Ashokrao Walse v. State of Maharashtra and others)10, 2000(1) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)18 : 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 291 we had an occasion to interpret the said provision and we held that there cannot be a distinction between private aided and unaided schools when it comes to the applicability of the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including the Government instructions issued from time to time. The S.L.P. challenging the same order was dismissed. Section 4 of the M.E.P.S. Act sets out the terms and conditions of service of employees of private schools and it would be desirable to reproduce sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) as under : "4. The S.L.P. challenging the same order was dismissed. Section 4 of the M.E.P.S. Act sets out the terms and conditions of service of employees of private schools and it would be desirable to reproduce sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) as under : "4. Terms and conditions of service of employees of private schools.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the State Government may make Rules providing for the minimum qualifications for recruitment (including its procedure), duties, pay, allowances, post-retirement and other benefits, and other conditions of service of employees of private schools and for reservation of adequate number of posts for members of the backward classes; Provided that, neither the pay nor the rights in respect of leave of absence, age of retirement and post-retirement benefits and other monetary benefits of an employee in the employment of an existing private school on the appointed date shall be varied to the disadvantage of such employee by any such Rules. (2) ... ... ... (3) If the scales of pay and allowances, post-retirement and other benefits of the employees of any private school are less favourable than those provided by the Rules made under sub-section (1), the Director shall direct in writing the management of such school to bring the same up to the level provided by the said Rules, within such period of extended, period as may be specified by him. (4) Failure to comply with any direction given by the Director in pursuance of sub-section (3) may result in the recognition of the school concerned being withdrawn, provided that the recognition shall not be withdrawn unless the management of the school concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 17. Section 16 of the Act provides the Rules making power and accordingly M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 have been framed by the State Government, Rule 7 deals with scales of pay and allowances and it states that the pay scales for full time as well as part time staff in the schools shall be as specified in Schedule-C. There is no doubt that in Schedule-C the pay scales as applicable to the teaching and non-teaching employees in polytechnics have not been set out, and for obvious reasons. As observed earlier, the Polytechnics were not within the ambit of the M.E.P.S. Act till 1990 and the State Government did not think it appropriate to amend Schedule-C thereafter for the simple reasons that on the enactment of the A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987 it was the A.I.C.T.E. who was responsible to prescribe the pay scales and other service conditions of the teaching as well as non-teaching staff in technical institutions like the polytechnics and degree colleges. On 20th September, 1989 the A.I.C.T.E. issued circulars prescribing the revised qualifications as well as pay scales for teachers of technical institutions including those of polytechnics. The Government of Maharashtra consequently issued Government Resolution dated 26th of May, 1992 adopted the recommendations made by the A.I.C.T.E. regarding the qualifications and pay scales. The condition of qualifying in an All India Examination such as GATE or equivalent does appear in the circular dated 20th September, 1989 issued by the A.I.C.T.E. and the Government Resolution dated 26th May, 1992 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. However, in the subsequent circular dated 30th of December, 1999 the said additional condition of qualification has been deleted by the A.I.C.T.E. The Government of Maharashtra issued another Government Resolution on 22nd November, 1989 for revision of pay scales of the employees in Polytechnics and further clarifications have been set out in the circular dated 23rd March, 1995 issued by respondent No. 4. 18. If regards be had to the provisions of section 4(1) it is clear that the State Government has the powers of making Rules providing for the minimum qualifications for recruitment, duties, pay, allowances post retirement and the order benefits and other conditions of service of employees of private schools and for reservation of adequate number of posts for members of the backward classes. Sub-section (3) of section 4 further states that if the scales of pay and allowances, post-retirement and other benefits of the employees of any private school are less than the provided by the said Rule made under sub-section (1) the Director shall direct in writing the management of such school to bring the same up to the level provided by the said Rules, within such period or extended period as may be specified by him. As per sub-section (4) failure to comply with any directions given by the Director in pursuance of sub-section (3) may result the recognition by the school being withdrawn provided that the recognition shall not be withdrawn unless the management of the school concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is under the provisions of section 4(3) of the M.E.P.S. Act that the respondent No. 4 is vested with the authority to issue directions in writing to the management of all private schools to bring the pay scales, allowances, post-retirement and other benefits of the employees on par with the rates prescribed. The A.I.C.T.E. has already prescribed the pay scales in respect of the employees under the Polytechnics and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 has the authority to issue directions to such polytechnics to implement the pay scales prescribed by the A.I.C.T.E. Even, otherwise, the respondent management in its return has admitted the role of A.I.C.T.E. in the following words: "... ... It is submitted that the actual control in academic as well as in administration of the college of the technical institutions, vest with All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") and the said Council is established under the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act of 1987. In view of the provisions of the Act, norms and standards of the technical institutions are set up by the said Council. In exercise of it's power, the Council has framed norms and standards for polytechnic colleges (diploma courses). According to the said standards the technical institution running diploma courses in various engineering branches, has to follow the norms in running the Polytechnic. It is submitted that in the said norms, requirements of running the Polytechnic, payment of salaries etc. to staff working in the said Polytechnic or institutions are clearly stated." 19. The Council being a body created under an Act of the Parliament, is required to carry out statutory functions and it is a modal agency so far as the technical education is concerned. to staff working in the said Polytechnic or institutions are clearly stated." 19. The Council being a body created under an Act of the Parliament, is required to carry out statutory functions and it is a modal agency so far as the technical education is concerned. The respondent No. 4 being responsible for the technical education at the State level derives his authority to issue directions/instructions to the private managements, whether aided or unaided in view of the provisions of section 4(3) read with section 3(1) of the M.E.P.S. Act and by issuing such directions he would be performing a statutory function. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to seek directions or a writ of mandamus against their employer for implementing such directions regarding pay scales and other benefits. The circular dated 29th of September, 1995 is required to be held to have been issued by exercising the powers under section 4(3) of the M.E.P.S. Act and there is no doubt that the respondent No. 2 is governed by the provisions of the said Act. 20. The Government of Maharashtra granted permission to the respondent No. 1 to open the respondent No. 2 Polytechnic for the academic year 1983-84, vide order dated 22nd July, 1983 on certain terms and conditions and conditions (A) and (C) as set out therein are reproduced as under : ^^v½ 'kklu fu.kZ;] f'k{.k o lsok Hkkstu foHkkx Hk- fVbZ,e 3382@11136 ¼190½ rkaf'kv] fnukad 21 es 1983 vUo;s v'kk laLFkkuk ijokuxh ns.;klkBh 'kklukus fofgr dsysY;k vVh o 'krhZ vki.kkl ekU; vlrhy ¼lnj 'kklu fu.kZ;kph izr lksacr tksMyh vkgs½ d½ ojhy ¼v½ o ¼c½ e/;s varHkqZr vl.kkjh dkxni=s o vkSipkjhd ckch ;k laLFksEnkjs ra= f'k{k.k lapkydkP;k lgerhus] lek/kkudkjdfjR;k iw.kZ dj.;kr ;srhy o R;kuarjp vH;kldze lq# dj.;klkBh vafre ijokuxhrqau f'k{k.k lapkyd] egkjk"Vª jkT; eqacbZ ;kaP;kdMqu ns.;kr ;sbZy-^^ ^^ 21. In condition (A) itself it is clearly stipulated that the management agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions as prescribed by the State Government while granting such permission. As per Clause (C) the management was called upon to fulfil the formalities before starting the institution and pursuant to the said requirement the respondent No. 1 submitted an undertaking on 21st July, 1983 as a part of the application for recognition. As per Clause (C) the management was called upon to fulfil the formalities before starting the institution and pursuant to the said requirement the respondent No. 1 submitted an undertaking on 21st July, 1983 as a part of the application for recognition. The undertaking is in the following words :- "The management hereby agrees that it is entiling to and shall abide by the orders and Rules laid down by the department or that will be laid down hereinafter regarding recognition, grant-in-aid, conduct of the institution etc." This undertaking amply makes it clear that the respondent No. 1 management was bound by the directions/orders issued by the respondent No. 4 from time to time for the conduct of the respondent No. 2 Polytechnic and the term "conduct of institution" would include the implementation of pay scales and other service conditions in respect of its employees. 22. In Column 12 of the application for recognition, as submitted by the respondent No. 1 on 31st July, 1983, it has been stated as under:- "Hindi Sewa Mandal was established in the year 1953 and it is conducting classes from 1st standard to 12th standard. Total students strength for the year 1983-84 is 4500. Society is in possession of 20 acres of land having an estimated cost of Rs. 5 lakhs. Society has its own newly constructed building to accommodate Diploma courses, market value of it is nearly Rs. 4 lakhs. Till the completion of new Polytechnics building the proposed college will be housed in the presently old building. In Bhuswal there are 16 schools, science colleges and technical high schools and one Government I.T.I. and 7 large scale industries having laboratories and workshop. Laboratories and workshops will be made available on payment basis. At present many prominent institutions are anxious to extend co-operation and help. Hind Sewa Mandal Society or its management keeps no ray of expectation of any type of grant from Government, recurring or non-recurring." The above declaration made by the respondent No. 1 itself indicates about the infrastructure available with it, the potential for running the proposed Polytechnic and the determination of the management to run it without any financial assistance from the State Government. The management was fully aware of its responsibility towards the salary payment and other benefits to its employees as per the pay scales prescribed by the Government or the A.I.C.T.E. from time to time and more so when the Council had granted recognition on year to year basis, it presupposes that its record was examined by the said Council before such orders were issued. It is not disputed that in the academic year 2000-2001 the respondent No. 1 is running a number of educational institutions wherein about 8000 students are enrolled with about 350 teaching and non-teaching employees. It celebrated its golden jubilee in the academic year 2000-2001. It is an institution with a sound base in all respects and it cannot contend before us that it has discharged its obligation by paying the basic salary as prescribed by the A.I.C.T.E. plus 40% dearness allowance and 10% House Rent Allowance and other statutory benefits. 23. In the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 it has been also contended that the respondent No. 2 institution has been closed for the academic year 2000-2001 onwards. We have seen from the record that such an approach seems to have been made by the said management to the respondent No. 4. However, the factum of closure and permission thereof may be governed as per the Rules. The services of its employees will be subject to such orders to be passed either by the Deputy Director or Director of Technical Education or as per the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. We need not dwell upon those issues. The petitioners would be entitled to receive the benefits so long as they continue to be in service. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the respondent management also submitted that the petitioners had given consent to work on the consolidated salary as set out in their appointment letters and, therefore, they are estopped from raising the dispute for payment of higher financial benefits. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the respondent management also submitted that the petitioners had given consent to work on the consolidated salary as set out in their appointment letters and, therefore, they are estopped from raising the dispute for payment of higher financial benefits. It is well settled that there is no estoppel against the statutory provisions and specially when the service conditions of the employees are governed by the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules thereunder as well as the norms laid down by the A.I.C.T.E. which have been subsequently followed by the State Government and directions have been issued to the management by the respondent No. 4 under section 4(3) of the said Act. In any case, we are not inclined to consider the petitioners' prayers for the period prior to September, 1995. 24. In the premises, we allow the petition partly and direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the circular dated 29th September, 1995 issued by the respondent No. 4. Rule made absolute to that extent only. 25. This is a fit case to Award costs and we, therefore, direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) to the petitioner No. 1 by way of costs. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Petition partly allowed. -----