BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ application, the petitioners, nine in number, all vocational and engineering training schools in the State of West Bengal, have prayed for direction upon the respondents to introduce pay scale to the teaching and non-teaching staff and to modify/amend the old Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1930. The petitioners have further prayed for setting aside the order dated 6th December, 1991 passed by the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, government of West Bengal being Annexure 'p-14'. ( 2 ) BY the said order dated 6th December, 1999, the Joint Secretary of the concerned department has turned down the prayers of the petitioners for grant of pay scale and amending the existing Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1930. ( 3 ) THE following facts are not in dispute:a) The petitioners are running their schools with the Grant-in-Aid for technical and industrial schools as per G. O. 26t-A. 1 dated 19th April, 1930. These industrial schools are functioning with the assistance of its staff with the approval of Director of Industries of West Bengal under the scheme applicable to different technical and industrial Grant-in-Aid schools. These schools are run under the supervision of the Directorate of Industries like other schools under West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Each of the schools have Managing Committee or approved authority for a stipulated period. B) Apart from supervision of management and administration, in all these schools, the staff maintenance and development, purchase of equipment for the training are made with the aid and assistance of Directorate of Industries but no pay-scale was introduced under the said Grant-in-Aid Scheme of 1930. C) The petitioners in the past made various representations to the State respondents for the purpose of fixing up a pay scale structure like that of other teachers in secondary or primary schools but the State respondents have not approved the prayer of the petitioners. D) After various representations were made, by Memo No. 7561 dated 29th march, 1995, the Commerce and Industries Department of Government of west Bengal fixed the additional maintenance grant/dearness allowance to each of the teaching staff @ Rs. 200/- per month and a further sum of Rs. 100/- per month to the non-teaching staff. Thereafter, by a further Memo dated 13th March, 1996, the Director of Industries informed the Commerce and Industries Department by sanctioning monthly additional maintenance grant/dearness allowance @ Rs. 200/- per month and a further sum of Rs. 100/- per month to the non-teaching staff. Thereafter, by a further Memo dated 13th March, 1996, the Director of Industries informed the Commerce and Industries Department by sanctioning monthly additional maintenance grant/dearness allowance @ Rs. 210/- per month to the teaching staff and @ rs. 125/- to the non-teaching staff per month and that amount of grant is being received by the employees of the petitioners. E) According to Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1930, the power to sanction aid to a particular school is limited to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per year and the State respondent is reluctant to amend the said rules and enhance the said amount even in the year 2000. ( 4 ) MR. Panja supplemented by Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the attitude of the State government towards the petitioners infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of india inasmuch as the State Government has taken the burden of all the teachers in the State in the other field except this technical branch. The learned Counsel contended that when the State Government had accepted the responsibility of payment of salary to the primary teachers, secondary teachers, college lecturers etc. there is no reason why such help should not be extended to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioners. This, according to them, is a clear discrimination affecting the right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) MR. Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent, has opposed this application and has contended that this Court sitting in a writ jurisdiction cannot pass any direction upon the State respondent to amend an existing statute nor can this Court direct the State respondent to take financial burden of paying the salary by way of grant in favour of a particular institution. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the instant writ application. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record I find that an applicant can move this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India if it can establish that any of its legal or fundamental rights has been infringed by the action or inaction on the part of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that by virtue of Grant-in-Aid Scheme of 1930, the petitioners receive grant from the State Government on compliance of certain conditions specified in those rules. By virtue of those rules, the State Government has some manner of control over those institutions in the matter of appointing or dismissing the employees of the schools and also in the matter of management of the institutions. If they fulfil all the requirements specified in the scheme then and then only the State Government releases the grant. Mr. Panja and mr. Chatterjee both the learned Counsel have submitted before this Court that their clients are ready to be bound by any further restriction the State government may impose; but in these days, they proceed, grant @ Rs. 210/- per teaching staff and Rs. 125/- per non-teaching staff subject to a limit of rs. 10,000/- per annum cannot be said to be reasonable. They submit that fixation of such a paltry sum amounts to arbitrary fixation in comparison with the grant given to the other fields of education. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the materials before this Court. I am of the view that a Writ Court taking an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct a State government to take the burden of running of certain institution which is not established by the State Government. An educational institution after being established without consent of State Government, cannot ask the State government to bear the responsibility of its functioning. It is true that the state Government is granting some aid to these institutions on fulfilment of certain conditions by virtue of which the State has control over the management and affairs of such institution so that the aid granted in favour of such institution is not misused. But on the question of quantum of such grant, an institution not established by State Government has no right. If the institution is not satisfied with the amount of grant, it may ask the State Government to withdraw such grant and in the process, the control exercised by State Government will also come to an end the moment such grant is withdrawn. If the institution is not satisfied with the amount of grant, it may ask the State Government to withdraw such grant and in the process, the control exercised by State Government will also come to an end the moment such grant is withdrawn. But such an institution cannot complain before a Court that it is unable to function due to financial stringency and, therefore, a direction should be given to the State Government to take full control over it and further a scale of pay should be fixed in accordance with the scale fixed by the State Government in respect of teachers working in the other fields. It is within the competence of the State Government to decide on what account it will spend the public money. If it takes a policy decision not to grant any further aid in favour of a technical school, those technical schools, independently established, cannot have any right to force the State Government to grant further aid. ( 9 ) I also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that simply because the State Government has taken the burden of payment of the teachers and non-teaching staff of the primary schools, secondary schools and even non-Government colleges, they should also be directed to take the responsibility of these technical schools. Unless there is any statutory right recognizing any such right of these type of technical schools, this Court, even if it has sympathy for the teaching and non-teaching staff of this type of schools, cannot come in aid of the petitioners. ( 10 ) AS pointed out earlier, the petitioners having failed to show any existing right either statutory or fundamental to have Grant-in-Aid at a specified rate in their favour, this Court cannot pass a direction as prayed for in this writ application. Even, if today, the State Government decides to withdraw the grant, even in such a situation, this Court cannot pass direction upon the State government to revoke such decision. The position however, would have been different if these schools were established by the State itself, and in such a case, if the grant was insufficient, the petitioners could complain violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India in comparison to the amount of grant given to other similarly placed employees of the State Government. The position however, would have been different if these schools were established by the State itself, and in such a case, if the grant was insufficient, the petitioners could complain violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India in comparison to the amount of grant given to other similarly placed employees of the State Government. ( 11 ) I, thus, find that the petitioner are not entitled to get any relief in this application. The writ application is thus dismissed. ( 12 ) IN the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Writ application dismissed.