JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners who were working in Shri Rishikul Sanskrit College, Laxmangarh (Sikar) on various posts as indicated in para 3 of the petition, have filed the present writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that respondents No. 1 and 2, State of Rajasthan and Director of Sanskrit Education Rajasthan, Jaipur, respectively should be required to recover the excess amount paid in the year 1980-90 from the Management Committee and respondents No. 6 and 7 be directed to disburse the same to the petitioners from whom such amount has been illegally recovered. A further prayer has been made that the State Government and the Director, Sanskrit Education be directed not to recover the amount of Rs. 76.120/- from the salary of the petitioners and the order 19.8.1992 to ttwt effect should be quashed. 2. It has been asserted by the petitioners that the Sanskrit College which is run by Shri Rishikul Brahmcharya. Ashram Acharya Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Laxmangarh (Sikar), has been receiving grant-in-aid to the extent of 80% upto Varisthha Upadhyaya Level which is equivalent to Sr. Secondary and 60% towards its Shastri Level which is equivalent to graduation. This college was established in 1917 by a Society which was registered in October, 1957. Last Management Committee was elected on 29.6.1988 and respondent No. 6 Shri Tolaram Chudiwala was elected as its Chairman whereas respondent No. 7 Shri Natwar Lal Joshi was elected as Secretary. The institution was recognised by the Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan as well as University of Rajasthan. Grant-in-aid was being paid to the institution under the Grant-in-aid Rules, 1963. It was stated that the aforesaid college was given provisional grant of Rs. 3,66,000/- in the year 1989. However, the management unlawfully and illegally with-held the pay of the teachers working in the college for about 3 to 4 months. When a complaint was made to the Director of College Education, the management on their instructions issued cheques in favour of the teachers. However, when the cheques were presented to the bank, they were dis-honoured.The teachers again made a complaint to the Secretary and the Director of Sanskrit Education in the month of October, 1990. The Secretary to the Government in its department of Sanskrit Education by his order dated 28.12.1990 (Ann. 2) issued instructions to the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur, regarding payment of salary. The Secretary to the Government in its department of Sanskrit Education by his order dated 28.12.1990 (Ann. 2) issued instructions to the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur, regarding payment of salary. In this order, it was stated that the Government has received complaints from various teachers working in the respondent-institution with regard to the non-payment of salary and hardship was being faced by their families. It was, therefore, directed that steps should be taken to get the amount of salary disbursed to teachers directly in proportion of grant-in-aid being paid to the institution by the Government. 3. It was stated that when the Management Committee failed to run the institution, the Government by its order dated 18.1.1991 (Ann. 3) passed by the Special Secretary, Department of Sanskrit Education dissolved the Management Committee and appointed District Education Officer, Sikar, as Administrator of the institution. In spite of appointment of Administrator, respondent No. 7 Shri Natwar . Lal Joshi who was secretary of the Management Committee was responsible for non-payment of the salary to the petitioners was still allowed to work as Principal of the College. It was stated that the Management Committee submitted a bill of Rs. 3,66,000/- for sanction of grant in the year 1989-90 to the Directorate Sanskrit Education as against which an amount of Rs. 3,66,000/- was provisionally sanctioned by the Government. However, when the amount of grant-in-aid was finalised in respect to the said year, the Government sanctioned only a sum of Rs. 2,86,356/- as per norms and did not sanction the remaining amount as being inadmissible. As sum of Rs. 79,644/- was, therefore, found to have been paid to the institution in excess of the sanctioned amount of the grant and was therefore, held recoverable as would be evident by order dated 23.3.1991 (Ann. 4). For the next year namely; 1990-91 again when an amount of Rs. 3,42,000/-,was sanctioned provisionally towards grant by the Government. However, at the time of payment of grant, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 76,120/- recovered and only remaining sum of Rs. 2,65,980/- was paid as would be evident form the order dated 19.8.82 (Ann. 5). Resultantly, the Administrator reduced salary to the teachers and other staffs and they were not paid their salary. 4. However, at the time of payment of grant, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 76,120/- recovered and only remaining sum of Rs. 2,65,980/- was paid as would be evident form the order dated 19.8.82 (Ann. 5). Resultantly, the Administrator reduced salary to the teachers and other staffs and they were not paid their salary. 4. The petitioners have stated that in fact recovery of the amount which was required to be made from the Management Committee was virtually made from them and that their salary was reduced by 36% of the actual pay. The writ petition was filed way back on 20.11.1992 and the petitioners have stated that they have not received the salary for the year 1992. It was only after much pursuation that the Government had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 1,45,933/-, wherefrom their salary for the month of January, 1992 has been paid. In this bill also as against the total sanctioned amount of Rs. 2,22,053/-, the Government had deducted the difference of the provisional amount in the sanctioned grant of the year 1991-92 which is Rs. 76,120/- and has paid only a sum of Rs. 1,45,933/-. The petitioners served upon the respondents a legal notice for demand of justice through their counsel on 20.10.1992 but no action was taken on the said notice either. It was, therefore, the petitioners filed this writ petition praying the relief that the respondents. 5. In the reply, the respondents have taken preliminary objection that their action in deducting certain amount from the grant-in-aid sanctioned to the Management Committee can be challenged only by such Management Committee and further that the petitioners would have no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the same. On merits it has been submitted that the petitioners are employees of the Management Committee and that answering respondents are in no way responsible for payment of their salary. The present dispute essentially arise only between teachers and the management. It has been stated that in the year 1989, a sum of Rs. 79,644/- paid in excess of the due amount was adjusted from the amount of grant-in-aid sanctioned during the year 1990-91. Similarly another sum of Rs. 76,120/- was found to have been paid in excess during the year 1990-91 which also was deducted from the amount of grant-in-aid sanctioned to the Management Committee in the financial year 1991-92. 79,644/- paid in excess of the due amount was adjusted from the amount of grant-in-aid sanctioned during the year 1990-91. Similarly another sum of Rs. 76,120/- was found to have been paid in excess during the year 1990-91 which also was deducted from the amount of grant-in-aid sanctioned to the Management Committee in the financial year 1991-92. Issue with regard to deduction from the amount grant-in-aid could be agitated only by the Management Committee and the petitioners did not have any locus standi to pray the same. It has been therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard the arguments of Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri H.V. Nandwana, learned Dy. G.A. 7. Shri H.V. Nandwana at the outset raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition. He stated that the dispute involved in the present writ petition was essentially a private dispute and the writ petition was, therefore, not maintainable particularly when grievance with regard to deduction from. the amount of grant-in-aid could be raised only by the Management Committee and not by the petitioners who are their employees. 8. Shri S.P. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others v. V.R. Rudani and Others (1989) 2 SCC 691 and argued that any person or authority performing public duty and owing positive obligation to the affected party, was amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He argued that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners who are all employees of the Management Committee receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and engaged in imparting education to students was maintainable against such institution. Shri S.P. Sharma also relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court in Dr. Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & another (1994) (2) WLC 1) . The Full Bench in this case held that the private educational institution receiving grant-in-aid from Government and governed by 1963 Rules and run by Registered Society performs public function is amenable to writ jurisdiction as instrumentality of State. In the case of Andi Mukta (supra), the Apex Court categorically held that the aided institutions like Government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students; They are subject to rules and regulations of affiliating University. In the case of Andi Mukta (supra), the Apex Court categorically held that the aided institutions like Government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students; They are subject to rules and regulations of affiliating University. Their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities. Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of a public character. The Apex Court on the controversy in dispute held in para 15 as under : "If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely a private body with no public duty, mendamus will not lie. 'These are two exceptions to mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated that the appellants-trust was managing the affiliated college to which public money is paid as Government aid. Public money paid as Government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational institutions. The added institutions like Government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students. They are subject to the rules and regulations of affiliating University. Their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities. Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of any public character. So are the service conditions of the academic staff. When the University takes a decision regarding their pay scales, it will be binding on the management. The service conditions of the academic staff are, therefore, not purely of a private character. It has super-added protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management. When there is existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party." 9. The Full Bench of this court in Dr. Bajrang's case (supra) categorically held that private educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from Government can be considered instrumentality of the State and are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. 10. I, therefore, over-rule the objections raised by learned Dy. Government Advocate as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The Full Bench of this court in Dr. Bajrang's case (supra) categorically held that private educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from Government can be considered instrumentality of the State and are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court. 10. I, therefore, over-rule the objections raised by learned Dy. Government Advocate as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Another additional factor which persuade me to reject this preliminary objection which is peculiar to the present case is that the deduction in the present case was made by the Government at a time when the Government itself had appointed Administrator and directed that salary to the teachers be disbursed directly in proportion of the amount of grant-in-aid. Their rights thus stood crystallized in the order of the Government dated 28.12.1990. Learned Dy. Government Advocate informed the court that the Administrator is running the affairs of the respondent institution even now and orders for appointment of the Administrator on periodical basis are passed from time to time. He has produced before the court copy of one such order No. P 17(82) Shiksha-5/05 dated 24.10.2005 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer concerned has been appointed Administrator for a period of six months or till the election take place. Copy of this order has been taken on record. 11. A limited dispute that has arisen between the Government on one hand and the Management Committee on the other hand is that the Management Committee was initially paid certain amount as provisional grant-in-aid during the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and when these grants were finalised at the end of these two academic sessions amounts of Rs. 79,644/- and Rs. 76,120/-, respectively were found to have been paid in excess of the amount that was due to the Management Committee and were deducted from the amount of grant paid in subsequent year. When the petitioners were not being paid their salary by the Management Committee, on their making a complaint, the Govt. itself issued order dated 28.12.1990 (Ann. 2) requiring the Director Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur to ensure in view of the hardship faced by the families of the teachers that the amount of salary in proportion of the amount of grant-in-aid was directly disbursed to them. Soon thereafter, the Govt. vide its order dated 18.1.1991 (Ann. 3) appointed Administrator. itself issued order dated 28.12.1990 (Ann. 2) requiring the Director Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur to ensure in view of the hardship faced by the families of the teachers that the amount of salary in proportion of the amount of grant-in-aid was directly disbursed to them. Soon thereafter, the Govt. vide its order dated 18.1.1991 (Ann. 3) appointed Administrator. If .any such recovery is to be made by the Government from the- Management Committee, it could proceed in any manner against such committee but the Government or Administrator could not have recoveries made in such a manner so as to reduce or deduct the amount of salary which is legitimately due to be paid to the employees of the educational institution. When the petitioners are discharging their duties in the educational institutions; the Government is duty obliged to pay to them due amount of their salary at least to the extent of grand-in-aid which it has been paying to the institution in terms of its own direction/order dated 28.12.1990. 12. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioners the amount deducted from their salary within a period of three months. If any such amount has already been made in the intervening period by way of adjustment or otherwise, the same need not be paid to that extent. 13. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above with no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed as indicated. *******