JUDGMENT : Ruma Pal, J. Leave granted. 2. Twelve schools had applied for recognition to the State Government. On the allegation that the State Government was not responding to their applications, the schools filed a writ petition claiming recognition. During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, the High Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the twelve schools for recognition and grant in aid. Out of the twelve schools, the State Government granted recognition to two of them. The case of remaining the 10 schools was not recommended for recognition. 3. The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the ten schools which were not recommended for recognition. As far as the remaining two schools were concerned, the High Court directed that in view of the fact that they had been recognised, they should be given grant in aid. The direction giving financial aid was based upon a claim for parity with other schools similarly situated. 4. Being aggrieved, the State Government has preferred this appeal. We may clarify, at the outset, that although the appellants have also made the ten schools not recommended for recognition parties to the proceedings, there is no question of the proceedings continuing as far as they are concerned as the order impugned in this appeal had not granted them any relief. The question is whether the High Court was right in directing the grant in aid to the two schools which had been recognised. 5. The appellants have contended that on 8.12.1982, a resolution has been passed by the State Government, by which it was decided that the schools which were recognised would be granted aid only if the Finance Department concurred. On 8.6.1994 Rules were promulgated called the Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit School (Recognition and conditions) Rules 1993. Sub-rule 5 of Rule 5 provides as follows: "The recognition of the school shall be without aid/finance, and the State Government shall not be liable for any such financial liability as a result of such recognition." 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the recognised schools has argued that the 1993 Rules would have no application as far as they were concerned, since they had been granted recognition between 1991 and 1992. It is further urged that the State Government had in fact granted aid to other schools similarly situated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the recognised schools has argued that the 1993 Rules would have no application as far as they were concerned, since they had been granted recognition between 1991 and 1992. It is further urged that the State Government had in fact granted aid to other schools similarly situated. According to these schools before the 1993 Rules came into force, the Recognition Rules of 1982 were in place under which financial aid was consequential upon recognition. 7. The High Court, as we have noted, decided the issue solely on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no material whatsoever discussed by the High Court to show how the schools which had been granted aid and with which parity was claimed were similarly situated as the two recognised schools in this case. Furthermore, it appears that in atleast one of the earlier decisions, being CWJC No.7061, the decision of the High Court directing the grant of financial aid has been appealed against being LPA No. K843/99. According to the appellant this LPA is still pending and an interim stay was granted by the Letters Patent Bench on 15.2.2000 of the direction of the learned Single Judge directing the grant of financial aid. 8. The 1982 Rules, if any, are not before us today. They have also not been referred to by the High Court. What is on record is the resolution dated 8.12.1982 which, as we have already noted, directed that financial aid will be given only with the concurrence of the Finance Department. 9. We are of the view that even if the 1993 Rules do not apply, atleast this particular policy of the Government would have to be given effect to. 10. There is no right to aid the grant of which will depend upon economic and other relevant considerations. The High Court should not have without more directed the grant of aid to the two schools in question. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of by setting aside the decision under appeal and by directing the Finance Department of the State Government to consider the question of grant in aid to the two recognised schools who are respondents in these proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the communication of this order to it. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of by setting aside the decision under appeal and by directing the Finance Department of the State Government to consider the question of grant in aid to the two recognised schools who are respondents in these proceedings within a period of eight weeks from the communication of this order to it. In the event the financial aid is refused, it will be open to the respondents, if they are otherwise so entitled in law, to challenge such refusal in appropriate proceedings. 12. No costs.