JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order of the Chief Secretary dated 23.10.2006 by which the claim of recurring grant has been refused. Relief has been claimed that the State Government be directed to disburse the recurring grant. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition are that the petitioners are the Committee of Management running the institutions imparting education to the students starting from Class 1 to Class 5. In each one of the institution 50 per cent of the students are such students who belongs to Scheduled Caste category. They claimed to be recognized by the Basis Shiksha Adhikaris of their respective districts and also recognized and sponsored by the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been denied that the institutions of the petitioners are recognized by the Samaj Kalyan Department. However, it is not disputed that the institutions are recognized by the Basic Shiksha Adhikaris of their respective districts. It is alleged that as per the instruction issued by the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioners cannot realize fee from the students studying in the institutions and the petitioners in fact are not realizing any fee from any student. Teachers from nearby villages teach them on a small amount of remunerations which are being paid to them occasionally out of charities from local farmers. 3. On 31.3.1994 by circular letter issued by the Special Secretary, U.P. Government to the Director, Department of Social Welfare, U.P. applications have been invited from the educational institutions, fulfilling certain conditions, for sanctioning recurring grant to such institutions. It is not clear whether any recurring grant was paid or not. A Circular dated 20.4.1998 has been issued by Special Secretary, U.P. Government to the Director, Department of Social Welfare, U.P. relating to the proposal of recurring grant to the educational institutions who have fulfilled the condition of the Government order dated 31.3.1994 upto 31.3.1998. Government order dated 31.3.1994 is Annexure 2 and circular dated 20.4.1998 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Vide letters dated 20.4.1998 and 11.9.1998 certain informations have been sought by the Director, Department of Social Welfare, U.P. relating to the claim of recurring grant to the private institutions running primary classes. Government order dated 31.3.1994 is Annexure 2 and circular dated 20.4.1998 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Vide letters dated 20.4.1998 and 11.9.1998 certain informations have been sought by the Director, Department of Social Welfare, U.P. relating to the claim of recurring grant to the private institutions running primary classes. It is not clear whether any recurring grant was allowed to the institutions in pursuance of the aforesaid Government orders. Further a Government Order dated 21.5.1999 was issued by the Secretary, U.P. Government addressed to Director, Department of Social Welfare, U.P. stating therein that the Government has taken a decision for the payment of one time grant to the institutions, who were running since more than 10 years as on 31.3.1998 to whom the permanent or temporary recognition was granted and in which 50 per cent students are from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories subject to other conditions mentioned therein. One of the condition No. 2 (4) of the Government order dated 21.5.1999 is that the institutions had to give undertaking and affidavits that they are accepting the grant only once and they will not claim any grant in future from the Government. The validity of the aforesaid condition was challenged in Writ Petition No. 36719 of 1999. This Court vide order dated 1st March, 2002 quashed the aforesaid condition 2 (4). On the modification application being filed by the petitioners, the same was allowed and further direction was issued to the concerned authority to consider the claim of the petitioners for allowing grant-in-aid or for consideration of the institutions for being brought under the recurring grant-in-aid list in accordance with law after examining the merit of the entitlement of the petitioners. After the decision of this Court, vide Government Order dated 25th October, 2002 condition No. 2 (4) of the Government Order dated 21.5.1999 has been removed. Further, in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in the aforesaid order, the claim of recurring grant was examined by the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and vide order dated 26th February, 2002, the claim has been rejected. In the said order, it has been stated that after the Government order dated 21st May, 1999 the Government has not taken any revised policy decision about the recurring grant. In the said order, it has been stated that after the Government order dated 21st May, 1999 the Government has not taken any revised policy decision about the recurring grant. In paragraph 5 of the Government Order dated 21.5.1999, it has been categorically stated that keeping in view the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment responsibility of primary education had been given to the Local Bodies/Panchayat institutions and the grant given once may not continue in subsequent year and in case, if the institution desire they may contact the District Panchayat for the grant in future. The claim of the grant has been refused on the ground that having regard to the financial crisis and the present policy decision, it is not possible to allow the claim. 4. The aforesaid order dated 31.3.2003 refusing to allow the recurring grant was challenged in Writ Petition No. 16529 of 2003, Committee of Management and others v. State of U.P. and others, this Court vide order dated 3.3.2004 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 31.3.2003 and the State Government was directed to take fresh decision in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment and also keeping in view the Constitutional mandate as provided for under Article 41 now Article 21-A. After referring to the various decisions of the Apex Court, this Court in the aforesaid decision observed as follows : “Thus, consistent view has been noticed is that State cannot shirk from its responsibility of providing primary and secondary education and that too in the name of paucity of funds. In the present case this fact has not been disputed that institutions in question are recognised by the Social Welfare Department for primary education and is meant for weaker section of the society, and each one of the student studying is less than 14 years of age. Government Order dated 21.5.1999 itself mentioned that it was for promoting education to the students of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category. This fact has also not been disputed that more than 50% students of the aforementioned institution are from this category and further no fee whatsoever is realised from students who are admitted in these institutions and thus, finance is big issue for all these institutions and without financial assistance these institutions cannot run effectively. This fact has also not been disputed that more than 50% students of the aforementioned institution are from this category and further no fee whatsoever is realised from students who are admitted in these institutions and thus, finance is big issue for all these institutions and without financial assistance these institutions cannot run effectively. Institutions in question being recognised are undisputedly agencies of the State Government to fulfil obligations of the State Government as enjoined by the Constitution and students are given admission to these educational institutions in recognition of their ‘right to education’. In the present case it is clear that plea of the petitioners had not at all been seriously taken note of and in most causal manner the matter has been dealt with without caring for the fact that providing grant was an essential feature in furtherance of fulfilling and achieving Constitutional mandate, as approved in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., 1993 (1) SCC 645 , by mentioning that providing free education to the children up to the age of 14 years cannot be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity. Thus, in the present case plea which has been taken by the Respondents-State in respect to paucity of funds is not sustainable in the light of the observations of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the Constitutional mandate earlier which was in the shape of Article 45 of the Constitution of India and now in the shape of newly added Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Much stress has been laid on the fact that on account of 73rd and 74th amendment made in the Constitution now the responsibility of primary education is on Panchayats and Local Bodies and thus State Government cannot take financial burden. After enforcement of the aforementioned amendment, State Legislature under Article 243-G and 243-W by law has to confer power, authority responsibility on Panchayat/Municipalities etc. in respect to enabling them to function as institution of self Government. Now, under this provision primary education has been provided for in the functions of Gram Panchayat as per Section 15 (XVII) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Section 19 (1) of the aforementioned Act deals with maintenance and improvement of primary schools. Section 19 (2) provides for grants by Zila Panchayats and the State Government. Now, under this provision primary education has been provided for in the functions of Gram Panchayat as per Section 15 (XVII) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Section 19 (1) of the aforementioned Act deals with maintenance and improvement of primary schools. Section 19 (2) provides for grants by Zila Panchayats and the State Government. Section 20 talks of establishment of new primary schools, in respect to which also grant has to be arranged by the Zila Panchayat and State Government. Amendment has also been made in the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and by means of the same in respect to the institutions run and managed by the Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. at Allahabad, provisions have been made in respect to their establishment, administration, control and Management but till date nothing has come on record in respect to primary institution which have been recognised by the Director of Social Welfare Department. Nothing has been mentioned in the Counter affidavit in respect to the status of these institutions as to under whose control all these institutions are. Whether all these institutions are under the control of Local Bodies or Panchayat or same still continues to be under the control of Social Welfare Department.” 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the State Government has passed the order dated 26.2.2004 and again rejected the claim of recurring grant. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.2004, petitioners filed writ petition No. 77659 of 2005, Committee of Management and others v. State of U.P. and others. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23.3.2006 and quashed the order dated 14.1.2005. This Court observed as follows : “After respective arguments have been advanced, earlier judgment of this Court has been perused, impugned order in question has also been adverted to. Impugned order in question totally ignores the judgment of this Court while proceeding to take decision, and the decision has been taken on the premises that it is obligation of private management to make arrangement for ensuring payment of salary to its teacher. The fact of the matter is that dispute in question has not at all been adjudicated in its correct perspective while passing the order impugned. It has also been mentioned that as per 1973 Rules, at present release of grant is not feasible. The fact of the matter is that dispute in question has not at all been adjudicated in its correct perspective while passing the order impugned. It has also been mentioned that as per 1973 Rules, at present release of grant is not feasible. Fact of the matter is that no exercise whatsoever has been undertaken in positive perspective and the matter in question has been dealt with on totally negative note. Consequently, order dated 14.1.2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is directed to be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., who shall coordinate the matter inter-se all departments connected with dispute and take appropriate decision in the matter by means of reasoned and speaking order, preferably within period of next four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the impugned order has been passed. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the impugned order has been passed. The relevant extracts of the order are as follows : Þek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vknsk fnukad 23-3-2006 ds Øe esa lfpo csfld fk{kk }kjk O;Dr vfHker ds vuqlkj ÁkFkfed fo|ky; dks vuqnkfur djus dh dksbZ ;kstuk ugha gSA yxHkx gj xkao esa ifj"knh; ÁkFkfed fo|ky; gSA o"kZ 2008 rd 01 fd0eh0 ds ekud ds vuqlkj lHkh vkcknh {ks= ÁkFkfed fo|ky; ls lar`Ir gks tk;saxsA lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 , o 41 ftlds rgr 14 o"kZ rd ds cPpkssa dk fu%kqYd vfuok;Z fk{kk nh tkuh pkfg,A blh lUnHkZ esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk loZ fk{kk vfHk;ku ds vUrxZr 300 dh vkcknh ,oa 01 fd0eh0 {ks= esa ,d ÁkFkfed fo|ky; rFkk 800 dh vkcknh ,oa 02 fd0eh0 {ks= esa twfu;j gkbZ Ldwy [kksydj vius nkf;Roksa dh iwfrZ dh tk jgh gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vknsk fnukad 23-3-2006 ds Øe esa foRr foHkkx }kjk Áuxr Ádj.k esa viuk vfHker fuEuor O;Dr fd;k x;k gSA 1- mŸkj Ánsk csfld fk{kk vf/kfu;e 1972 dh /kkjk 19 dh mi/kkjk 1 ds v/khu cuk;h x;h mŸkj Ánsk ekU;rk ÁkIr csfld Ldwy ¼v/;kidkas dh HkrhZ rFkk lsok dh krsZ vkSj vU; krZs½ fu;ekoyh 1975 ds fu;e 4 ds vuqlkj ÁR;sd ekU;rk ÁkIr Ldwy ds ÁcU/kkf/kdj.k }kjk i;kZIr foRrh; lk/ku miyC/k fd;s tk;saxs rFkk ftu fo"k;ksa esa v/;kiu ds fy, ,sls Ldwy dks ekU;rk nh x;h gks] muds fy, ifj"kn }kjk fofufnZ"V eku ds vuqlkj i;kZIr lqfo/kkvka dh O;oLFkk dh tk;sxhA 2- ;kph ds fo|ky;ksa dh ekU;rk ds le; lu~ 1975 dh fu;ekoyh dh mDr O;oLFkk ÁHkkoh Fkh ftlds vuqlkj ;kph ds fo|ky;ksa ds lqpk: :i ls lapkyu ds fy, foRrh; lalk/ku miyC/k djk;s tkus dk nkf;Ro fo|ky; ds ÁcU/kkf/kdj.k dk gh jgk gSA 3- futh Áca/kkf/kdj.k ds v/khu lapkfyr fo|ky;ksa dk vkorZd@vukorZd vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus dh ck/;rk lekt dY;k.k foHkkx dh ugha gS vkSj vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds Nk=ksa dh ckgqY;rk ds vk/kkj ij fo|ky;ka dks vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus dh lekt dY;k.k foHkkx dh orZeku ea dksbZ uhfr ugha gSA 4- csfld fk{kk foHkkx }kjk ÁkFkfed fo|ky; dks vuqnkfur djus vFkok vkorZd@vukorZd vuqnku fd;s tkus dh dksbZ O;oLFkk ugha gS ekU;rk ÁkIr futh Áca/kkf/kdj.k }kjk lapkfyr ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ka ds foRrh; lalk/kuksa dk nkf;Ro Áca/kkf/kdj.k dk gSA 5- lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 41 ds of.kZr Right to education ftls vc vuqPNsn 21&, dss vUrxZr yk;k x;k gSA jkT; ljdkj ij Free and compulory education nsus dh vf/kjksfir laoS/kkfud ck);rk dks loZfk{kk vfHk;ku ds rgr iwjk fd;k tk jgk gSA bl laca/k esa ;g Li"V gS fd laoS/kkfud ck);rk Free and compulsory education nus dh gS u fd futh Áca/kkf/kdj.k ds vUrxZr [kksys x;s fo|ky;ka dks foRrh; lgk;rk nsus dhA 6- Ákkldh; foHkkx dh fVIi.kh esa Li"V fd;k x;k fd lekt dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk vuqlwfpr tkfr ds cPpksa dh ÁkFkfedrk fk{kk lqfufpr djus ds fy, ÁksRlkgu Lo:i vuqnku fn;s tkus dh O;oLFkk Ápfyr Fkh vkSj o"kZ 1994 rd fo|ky;ksa dks vuqnku ij fy;s tkus dh O;oLFkk jgh gS blds ipkr vkorZd vuqnku ij fo|ky;ksa dks fy;s tkus dh dksbZ uhfr ugha jgh gSA 7- ;kphx.kksa dh laLFkkvksa ,oa vU; bl Ádkj dh laLFkkvksa dks vkorZd vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus dk vkSfpRo ugha gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vknsk fnukad 23-3-2006 ds Øe eas Áuxr Ádj.k esa U;k; foHkkx dk vfHkeu fuEuor~ gSA Þek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 16529@03 esa ikfjr vknsk fnuksa 3-3-2004 ij U;k; foHkkx }kjk fn;k x;k ijkekZ fnukad 29-7-2007 rFkk foRr foHkkx ls ÁkIr vfHker ds vkyksd esa ;kfpdk la[;k 77659@05 esa ikfjr vknsk fnukad 23-3-2006 ds lEcU/k eas Áuxr Ádj.k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vknsk ds vuqikyu esa lEcU/k esa U;k; foHkkx ds ijkekZ dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA la{ksi esa Ádj.k ds rF; bl Ádkj gS fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 16529@03 esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vknsk fnukad 3-3-2004 ls fjV ;kfpkdkvka ds lewg dks fuLrkfjr djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj dk funsZfkr fd;k Fkk fd fu.kZ; esa fd;s x;s Observation ds vkyksd essa rFkk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 , ds ifjÁs{; esa ;kphx.ksa dh laLFkkvksa dkss vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus ds lEcU/k es iqu% vknsk ikfjr fd;s tk, rRipkr jkT; ljdkj }kjk fnukad 14-1-2005 dks ;kphx.kksa ds ÁR;kosnuksa dk fuLrkj.k dj fn;k x;k ftlls vlarq"V gksdj ;kphx.kksa us iqu% ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 77659@05 lafLFkr fd;k ftlesa ikfjr vknsk fnukad 23-3-2006 }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; us jkT; ljdkj ds vknsk fnukad 14-1-2005 dk [kkfjt djrs gq, ;g funsZk fn;k fd bl ekeys dks eq[;k lfpo m0Á0 kklu ds le{k j[kk tk;s tks bl ij ;qfDr;qDr vkSj Lihfdax vknsk ikfjr djsaxsA i=koyh ds ifjkhyu ls Li"V gksrk fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 3-3-2004 dks fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ij U;k; foHkkx i=koyh la0 19¼60½@03 ds i`"B 21&23 ij ;g vfHker fn;k x;k fd mDr vknsk ds fo:) foks"k vihy dh tkrh gS rks foks"k vihy esa lQyrk dh laHkkouk ux.; gSA lkFk gh U;k; foHkkx u ;s Hkh mYys[k fd;k fd vxj Ákkldh; foHkkx vihy djuk pkgrk gS rks og ÁLrko Ásf"kr djsA i=koyh ls fofnr gksrk gS fd U;k; foHkkx ds ijkekZ d ipkr~ Ákkldh; foHkkx us foks"k vihy gsrq dksbZ ÁLrko ÁLrqr ugha fd;kA bl Ádj.k esa foRr foHkkx }kjk tks vfHker O;Dr fd;k x;k gS mldk lkjkak ;g gS fd foRrh; mikk; ds vk/kkj ij mUgksaus bu laLFkkvksa dks vkorZd vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus dk vkSfpR; ugha ik;kA mijksDr lEiw.kZ rF;ksa ds ifjÁs{; esa fuEufyf[kr rF;kRed fcUnq gS % 1- ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk la0 16529@03 esa fnukad 3-3-2004 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;kA 2- mDr fu.kZ; ij U;k; foHkkx }kjk lEcfU/kr i=koyh ds i`"B 21&23 ij vfHker O;Dr fd;k x;kA 3- fu.kZ; fnukad 3-3-2004 ds fo:) m0Á0 ljdkj }kjk dksbZ foks"k vihy ugha dh x;hA 4- bl Ádkj vc ek0 U;k;ky; ds vknsk fnukad 3-3-2004 vfUre gks pqdk gSA 5- jkT; ljdkj }kjk ikfjr vknsk fnukad 14-1-2005 dks ek0 U;k;ky; ds vknsk fnukad 23-3-2006 }kjk vikLr ¼[kkfjt½ dj fn;k x;k gS ftlesa ek0 U;k;ky; us eq[; lfpo egksn; gsrq funsZk tkjh fd;s gSaA foÙk foHkkx us f}rh; mikk; ds vk/kkjksa ij viuh lgefr O;Dr ugha dh gSaA bl izdj.k esa ;g le> fy;k tkuk vko;d gS fd Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 , }kjk jkT; ljdkj ij ,d laoS/kkfud ck/;rk vf/kjksfir gksrh gS ,slh nkk esa foÙkh; vk/kkj ij bl laoS/kkfud ck/;rk ds vUrxZr gkus okys dk;Z ds vuqikyu dks utj vankt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA iwoZ i`"Bka ij dh x;h fVIif.k;ka ls Li"V gksrk gS fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk loZfk{kk dk;ZØe pyk;k tk jgk gS yfdu ;g rF; Hkh fofnr ugha gS fd ftu fk{k.k laLFkkvksa dh vksj lss ;kfpdk;sa izLrqr dh x;h Fkh o lHkh jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr gSA ;fn jkT; ljdkj dk ;g er Fkk fd loZfk{kk vfHk;ku }kjk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21&, ea mfYyf[kr laoS/kkfud ck/;rk dks iwjk fd;k tk ldrk gS rc vU; fk{k.k laLFkkvksa dks ekU;rk nsus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha FkkA U;k; foHkkx }kjk i=koyh la[;k&19¼60½@03 ds i`"B 21&23 ij tk fof/kd vfHker O;Dr fd;k x;k FkkA mlls fopfyr gksus dk dksbZ vk/kkj vkt Hkh ugha gSA mijksDr ds vkyksd esa U;k; foHkkx dk ;g vfHker gS fd eq[; lfpo egksn; m0 iz0 kklu }kjk lEcfU/kr fk{k.k laLFkkvksa dks vkorZd vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk fof/k lEer izrhr gkrk gSA U;k; foHkkx O;Dr vfHker ij foÙk foHkkx dh jk; fuEuor gSA ^^tSlk fd cfld fk{kk foHkkx ds vfHker ls O;Dr gkrk gSA Free and compulsory education fn;s tkus dh laoS/kkfud ck);rk jkT; ljdkj }kjk loZfk{kk vfHk;ku ds vUrxZr Lo;a iwjh dh tk jgh gS mÙkj iznk csfld fk{kk vf/kfu;e 1972 ds v/khu cuk;h x;h fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj ekU;rk izkIr Ldwyksa essa i;kZIr foÙkh lalk/ku miyC/k djk;s tkus rFkk i;kZIr lqfo/kkvksa dh ftEesnkjh Ldwy ds izca/kkf/kdj.k dh gS bls ns[krs gq, csfld fk{kk foHkkx }kjk fo|ky;ksa dh ekU;rk fn;s tkus ls foÙkh; lgk;rk izkIr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj fo|ky;ksa dk ugha curk gSa bl izdkj Free and compulsory education nsus dh lao/kkfud ck);rk d vUrxZr futh izca/kkf/kdj.k ds fo|ky;ksa dks foÙkh; lgk;rk fn;s tkus dh ck);rk ugha curh gSA ;kfpdk la[;k 16529@03 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 3-3-2004 ds vuqikyu esa lfpo lekt dY;k.k }kjk ;kphx.kksa dk nkok fujLr fd;s tkus fo"k;d vknsk fnukad 14-1-2005 dks fo:) nk;j nkf;dk la[;k 77659@05 esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vknsk fnukad 23-3-2006 ds vuqikyu esa lHkh lEcfU/kr foHkkxksa ls leUo; LFkkfir dj foHkkxkas ls izkIr vfHker dk lE;d ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA csfld fk{kk foHkkx foÙk foHkkx ,oa U;k; foHkkx ds vfHker ds Øe esa egkf/koDrk mÙkj iznsk dh Hkh jk; izkIr dh x;ha csfld fk{kk foÙk U;k; foHkkx ,oa egkf/koDrk mÙkj iznsk dh jk; dk lekosk djrs gq, ;kph laLFkkvksa dk vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus dk izLrko ek0 ea=h ifj"kn }kjk fopkjksijkUr izuxr izLrko vLohdkj dj fn;k x;kA vr% ;kph laLFkkvksa dks vkorZd vuqnku ij fy;s tkus dks dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA ;kphx.kksa dk nkok rn~uqlkj vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA g0 v0 23-10-2006 uohu pUæ cktisbZ eq[; lfpo** 7. The main ground on which the claim of the petitioners for recurring grant has been rejected are that the petitioners are recognized institutions under the provision of Basic School (Appointment of Teachers and Service Condition and other Conditions), Rules, 1975 made under Section 19 (1) of Basic Education Act, 1972. The private recognized institutions have to arrange their finances to run the institutions. It has been held that the Government has taken the policy decision to provide free and compulsory education through Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan under which the Government is opening primary schools in a place of the population of 300 persons in every one kilometer and to open the Junior High School in a place of population of 800 persons in every two kilometer. It is also held that after taking the opinion from Basic Education Department, Finance Department, Law Department and Advocate General, the Cabinet has rejected the claim of recurring grant after consideration. 8. Heard Sri R.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Article 41 now Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, the State is under obligation to provide free education to the students of age below 14 years and, therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to meet all the expenses incurred by the institutions who are imparting education to the students of the primary classes below the age of 14 years. He submitted that the State Government on the ground of financial crisis cannot refuse the recurring grant. He submitted that at one hand institutions are not allowed to take the fee from the students and on the other hand the Government is not granting recurring grant to run the institutions, to impart education to the students below the age of 14 years who are entitled to get free education in the institutions. He further submitted that the Circular issued by the Government from time to time from the year, 1994 onwards, the Government is bound to allow the recurring grant. 10. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no dispute that the State Government is under obligation to provide free education to the Students below the age of 14 years as enshrined by the Constitution of India and as directed by the Apex Court. 10. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no dispute that the State Government is under obligation to provide free education to the Students below the age of 14 years as enshrined by the Constitution of India and as directed by the Apex Court. He submitted that to provide free education to the students, the State Government has itself undertaken the scheme for opening of the Schools at different places under the Sarva Shiksha programme and, therefore, the Government is conscious about its Constitutional responsibility. He further submitted that under Rule 4 of the Basic School (Appointment of Teachers and Service Condition and other Conditions) Rules, 1975, while granting the recognition, the Government had made clear that Government will not be responsible for financial resources and financial resources has to be arranged by the private institutions, and, therefore, the private institutions have no right to claim for the recurring grant. He submitted that the responsibility of providing grant-in-aid has been given to the Local Body and Zila Panchayat for imparting education. The institutions should approach them and cannot raise any claim to the State Government. He submitted that in this view of the matter, petitioners should approach the local body or the Zila Panchayat for the recurring grant and the State Government is under no obligation to pay the recurring grant to the private institutions on the facts and circumstances. He further submitted that the Cabinet has taken a policy decision for not allowing any recurring grant to the private institutions. Thus, in view of the above policy decision taken by the Cabinet the claim of the petitioners for recurring grant has no justification and is not sustainable. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The grant-in-aid cannot be claimed by the petitioners as a matter of right. The petitioners can claim grant-in-aid only under some Government Order as a result of policy decision. The petitioners are not able to show any Government Order under which the petitioners can claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right. While granting the recognition under the provisions of Basic School (Appointment of Teachers and Service Condition and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 it was made clear that the Government would not be responsible for financial resources and financial recourses have to be arranged by the private institutions. While granting the recognition under the provisions of Basic School (Appointment of Teachers and Service Condition and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 it was made clear that the Government would not be responsible for financial resources and financial recourses have to be arranged by the private institutions. If the Government, as a matter of policy, has taken a decision to provide free education to the students below the age of 14 years towards their constitutional obligation by opening the schools under the scheme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the responsibility to provide grant-in-aid was given to the local body and Zila Panchayat for imparting education. The petitioners cannot claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right. 12. In view of the above, I do not see any merit in the claim of grant in aid. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ————