D. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. ( 2 ) SUBSTANTIALLY the claim of the petitioners is for grant of salary by the State respondent. ( 3 ) THE petitioners claim themselves to be the Assistant Teachers in the Primary School of chaudhary Baldev Singh Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bamnauli, District Bijnore, a duly recognized and aided High School. Their claim was rejected by the impugned order forcing them to file the present petition. ( 4 ) THE Constitution Bench in Unni Krishnan, J. P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. AIR 1993 SC 2178 , JT1993 (1)SC 474, 1992 (2)SCALE703, (1993)1 SCC645, [1993 ]1 SCR594 (here-in-after referred to as Unni Krishnans case) while dealing with primary and basic education, in paragraph No. 171 of the report held; ". . . The right to education which is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in-Article 21 must be construed in the light of directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution. So far as the right to education is concerned, there are several Articles in Part IV which expressly speak of it. Article 41 says that the "state shall, within the limit of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, Jo education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. " article 45 says that. . . . The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this (Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years," Article 46 commands that. . . . the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. " education means knowledge and "knowledge itself is power. " As rightly observed by John adams, "the preservation means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the properly of all the rich men in the country". It is this concern which seems to underlie Article 46. " education means knowledge and "knowledge itself is power. " As rightly observed by John adams, "the preservation means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the properly of all the rich men in the country". It is this concern which seems to underlie Article 46. It is the tyrants and bad rulers who are afraid of spread of education and knowledge among the deprived classes. Witness Hitler railing against universal education. He said: "universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction. " A true democracy is one where education is universal, where people understand what is good for them and the nation and know how to govern themselves. The three Articles 45, 46 and 41 are designed to achieve the said goal among others. It is in the light of these Articles that the content and parameters of the right to education have to be determined. Right to education, understood in the context of Articles 45 and 41, means (a)every child citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years. . . . " ( 5 ) AFTER considering several authoritative reports, it went on to hold in paragraph No. 175 to the following effect: be that as it may, we hold that child (citizen) has a fundamental right to free education upto the age of 14 years ( 6 ) BUT it hastened to clarify in the next paragraph that. . . This does not also means that unaided private schools cannot continue. They can, indeed, they too have a role to play. They meet the demand of that segment of population who may not wish to have their children educated in State run schools. . . . ( 7 ) ANOTHER three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal pradesh State Recognized and Aided Schools JT 1995 (8) SC 406, 1995 (3) SCALE 400 , (1995)4 SCC507, [1995 ]supp1 SCR297, 1995 (3)SLJ95 (SC), 1995 (2)UJ311 (SC) while considering the ratio laid down in Unni Krishnans case, held that the State is obliged to provide free education till 14 years and aid should be provided by the State irrespective of its financial capacity for payment of salary to those teachers. ( 8 ) OUR Court in the case of Ramji Tewari and Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools 1997 (1)U. P. L. B. E. C. 690 was confronted with the issue as to whether teachers of primary school are entitled for salary by the State through grant-in-aid akin to those of government primary Schools. After considering large number of decisions, including the aforesaid two decisions held that by denying proper salaries to such teachers the State is indirectly denying children of the right declared in Unni Krishnans case to get free education upto 14 years and issued directions in paragraph No. 75 for payment of salaries to teachers of primary schools whether aided or unaided as it found that without proper salaries, quality education cannot be imparted. ( 9 ) IN this background, let us consider the ground of denial to the petitioners, but some facts before we deal with it. ( 10 ) IT is alleged that the institution was granted recognition as a primary school by the name of primary School Bainnauli on 9. 1. 1969 by the Education Officer of the Department of Education, district Board, Bijnore. This institution was subsequently raised to the Junior High School by an order dated 6. 1. 1970 and to the High School level by an order dated 4. 9. l972 and it was taken in the grant-in-aid list in 1978 and since then the salaries of the employees and teachers of High school are being paid from the State Exchequer under the U. P. High School and Intermediate (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 but the primary teachers of the said institution continue to receive paltry salaries from the Management even though the Primary section is under the same Management and Principal and also is situated in the same premises as the High School. The State Government through a Government Order dated 6. 9. 1989 decided to pay the salaries of the teachers of 393 primary schools which were attached and integral part of recognized and aided High Schools and Intermediate under the 1971 Act. The State Government through a Government Order dated 6. 9. 1989 decided to pay the salaries of the teachers of 393 primary schools which were attached and integral part of recognized and aided High Schools and Intermediate under the 1971 Act. The Management approached the authorities for passing similar orders but to no avail and even representations of the petitioners evoked no response then came the decision of the Court in Ramji Tewaris case (Supra) and on its strength they preferred a writ petition No. 1063 of 2003 which was disposed off vide order dated 27. 1. 2003 with a mandate to the Director of Education to decide the representation and claim of the petitioners but it was rejected by the impugned order dated 18. 6. 2003 on the ground that the District Board did not have any jurisdiction to grant recognition to primary school in 1969 and there was no evidence to show that the primary section was an integral part of the High School. It further found that the name of the institution had been changed without the due permission of the District Inspector of Schools. ( 11 ) U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 came into force in that year and a Board was constituted under Section 3 for controlling education uptill 8th classes. Prior to it, primary education in respect of primary school situated in Municipalities was governed by U. P. Primary Education act, 1919 and it was construed as part and supplementary to the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. So far as primary education of other areas is concerned, it was governed by U. P. District Boards primary Education Act, 1926 which was construed as supplementary to United Provinces district Boards Act, 1922. Clause 5 of Section 2 of the 1926 Act read alongwith Section 3 and 6 stipulates that the District Board may grant recognition to primary institutions situated in rural areas. Likewise for areas within the Municipalities the power for recognition under the 1919 Act vested with the Prescribed Authority. It is not denied that the petitioner institution was granted recognition vide order dated 9. 1. 1969 issued by the Education Officer of the Education department of the District Board, Bijnore in view of the specific provisions of the 1926 Act. Likewise for areas within the Municipalities the power for recognition under the 1919 Act vested with the Prescribed Authority. It is not denied that the petitioner institution was granted recognition vide order dated 9. 1. 1969 issued by the Education Officer of the Education department of the District Board, Bijnore in view of the specific provisions of the 1926 Act. The contention of the State respondent that the District Board or its Chairman did not have any power for recognizing any primary school cannot be countenanced. It is on record that the primary school was also released grants in the year 1985, the respondents have failed to explain as to how grant could have been released if the school was not recognized. It is not the case of the respondents that the school does not exist or no primary classes are being held but merely on the basis of the technical objection the claim has been rejected. The District Inspector of Schools himself in his report dated 29. 4. 2003 has held that this very institution was raised from primary level to Junior High School level and thereafter to the High School level. Though there may be some irregularity in the change of name, but it cannot be a ground to refuse the benefit as extended to those 393 schools vide Government Order dated 6. 9. 1989. It is also on record that every class V student is automatically admitted in class VI without any transfer certificate and the school is being run by a common Management and Principal. This Court in the case of ramji Tewaris case had issued clear guidelines for payment of salary to such teachers. However, it would always remain open to the State respondents to first ensure whether the teachers are duly qualified and appointed and in fact are teaching in the institution. ( 12 ) THUS, for the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 18. 6. 2003 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to pass afresh order after hearing the petitioners in the light of the observation and findings recorded herein within two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs. . .