RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 12-11-1998 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-13 to the writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Arya Balika Inter College situate in District Mau is a recognized institution. It has been granted recognition upto High School level with financial aid and recognition of Intermediate classes has been granted by the Board without any financial aid. The institution being in the list of grant-in-aid of the State upto High School, the teachers and employees working upto High School level are getting their salary from the State fund. The recognition of Intermediate classes in the institution being without any financial aid, the Lecturers working in Intermediate classes of the institution are getting their salary from the Committee of Management. 4. In the year 1981 one post of Principal three posts of Asstt. Teachers L. T. grade, five posts of C. T. grade, one post of clerk and five posts of peons were created. It is stated that by passage of time the strength of students in the college is increasing, hence permission was sought by the college authorities to open new sections. The State Government after verification approved only 12 sections upto High School level according to the norms based on the strength of students and also granted permission to run new sections for Intermediate classes. 5. The posts of teachers and employees in High School and Intermediate colleges are created according to the norms and standard prescribed by the State Government. The Government Order dated 20-11- 1977 provides that upto High School level post of 1. 5 teachers will be sanctioned and for Intermediate classes in every recognized sections two posts of Lecture will be created. The Government Order further provides that if the strength of students in High School colleges is upto 900, then one Additional post of clerk will also be sanctioned. The copy of the G. O. is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 6. The Government Order further provides that if the strength of students in High School colleges is upto 900, then one Additional post of clerk will also be sanctioned. The copy of the G. O. is Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the recognition upto High School has been granted to the institution with finance, hence the authorities were under obligation to create posts of teachers and employees in the college according to the decision of the State Government on the basis of approval granted to 12 sections. He further submits that there must be 18 posts of teachers in the college, but at present there are only 8 sanctioned posts of teachers upto High School level, as the Committee of Management was facing much hardship in the smooth running of the college particularly in maintaining studies of students due to shortage of teachers, hence a demand was submitted for creation of additional posts alongwith all necessary particulars, but no action was taken by the Director of Education (Secondary) in the matter. Being aggrieved, the Committee of Management of the college filed Writ Petition No. 19646 of 1998, which was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Education (Secondary) to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioners for creation of posts. 7. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the matter was heard by the Director of Education (Secondary ). It is submitted that on non-existing grounds, request of the petitioner was turned down vide impugned order dated 12-11-1998, Annexure-13 to the writ petition. He states that in welfare of the State, education one of the top priority sector and it is a constitutional duty of the State to make necessary arrangement for education to its citizens for which sufficient number of schools and colleges are to be established, appointments of the teachers are to be made and salary is to be paid by the State. 8. It is further argued that the State has utterly failed to discharge such constitutional obligations and a large number of schools and colleges have been established by the societies by its own resources. Buildings, class-rooms, furnitures and other requirements are being provided by the management and these institutions are being managed by private management. 8. It is further argued that the State has utterly failed to discharge such constitutional obligations and a large number of schools and colleges have been established by the societies by its own resources. Buildings, class-rooms, furnitures and other requirements are being provided by the management and these institutions are being managed by private management. He submits that inspite of establishment of the institutions by the management, recognition is granted by the State authority only when the institution fulfills all eligibility conditions imposed by the State. If the recognition is granted, no teacher is paid salary by the State Government unless the State itself decided to grant aid to a particular institution and once aid is granted to an institution, the college authorities are restrained from realizing fees from the students and if the fees is realized, the action is taken against the management and the college authorities. Thus according to him, the State has control and supervision in the matter of appointment of teachers and employees in the recognized institution as well as payment of their salary and realization of fees by the Manager, according to the policy decision of the State Government as contained in the G. O. dated 20-11-1977. 9. Lastly, it has been contended that in the present case the petitioners have not claimed any extra post in excess of the standard fixed by the State Government and the State is liable to fulfil its constitution obligations. 10. From the impugned order, it appears that respondent No. 1 has turned down the request of the petitioners on the ground that the State Government has imposed a ban on creation of new posts in educational institution with effect from 9-12-1986, which is continuing till today. 11. It is constitutional mandate of free education upto the age of 14 years. There is absolutely no justification to impose ban for all times to come, as the population has increased and there are more and more children, who are to be given education. Removal of illiteracy is also a priority sector of the Government and for achieving full litracy, State and the Union Governments have framed schemes for removal of illiteracy. From December, 1986 almost 16 years period has already elapsed and ban cannot be a ground to deny financial assistance and aid to the educational institution and creation of post for depriving quality of education to children. 12. From December, 1986 almost 16 years period has already elapsed and ban cannot be a ground to deny financial assistance and aid to the educational institution and creation of post for depriving quality of education to children. 12. A supplementary affidavit also filed by the Manager of Arya Balika Inter College, Gontha, District Mau. In paras 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that even after 1986 a ban is said to have been imposed, on a number of occasions posts of teachers and employees have been created by the Director of Education (Secondary ). Such order dated 5-6-1995 has also been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit, which shows that vide order dated 12-10-1993 posts of Lecturers were created after 9-12-1986. Even in District Mau posts of teachers and employees have been created in Samaj Sewak Inter College, Bhaisopur, District Mau in 1995 and in Shankarji Inter College, Patjeewa Sitaram District Mau in 1997. It is stated that in view of these facts the ground taken by the Director of Education (Secondary) rejecting petitioners claim is unsustainable, arbitrary and discriminatory. 13. In Unni Krishnan J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 SCC Vol. (4) page 6115, it has been held by the Apex Court that to get free education is a fundamental right of children upto the age of 14 years. In Ramji Tiwari v. State, 1997 UPLBEC page 1662, it has been held that the only way out to get free education by the children upto the age of 14 years is that teachers teaching such students are paid salary by the State Government. 14. In Lal Bahadur Shastri Junior High School and others v. State of U. P. and others, JT 2002 (5) SCC 37 , the Apex Court has held that the request for additional posts cannot be rejected on the ground of ban imposed on creation of additional posts. 15. It is not denied that in petitioners institution, which is from Class-VI to Class-X, the students upto the age of 14 years are also studying. 16. Inspite of time being granted on 19-2-1999 and again by order dated 28-11-2002 counter affidavit was not filed by the State Government. 15. It is not denied that in petitioners institution, which is from Class-VI to Class-X, the students upto the age of 14 years are also studying. 16. Inspite of time being granted on 19-2-1999 and again by order dated 28-11-2002 counter affidavit was not filed by the State Government. Admittedly, the Government has fixed the norms and standard for creation of posts for education of students and the petitioners are not claiming any extra post in excess of the standard fixed by the State Government. 17. Thus continuance of ban for the last 16 years ignoring the constitutional mandate and the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court, the impugned order passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) is liable to be quashed. 18. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Gopal Dubey v. DIOS, Maharajganj and another, 1999 (1) E. S. C. 168 (All), has expressed view that the demand for creation of posts should be considered by the authority concerned and the matter to create necessary posts should be decided on merits. Thus in the present case the sole ground for rejecting demands of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 19. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 12-11-1998, Annexure-13 of the writ petition is quashed. respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the application of the petitioners afresh for creation of posts in accordance with law taking into consideration the norms and standard prescribed by the State Government vide G. O. dated 20-11-1977 and the observations made in this judgment, positively within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. .