( 1 ) THIS group of petitions has been filed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 29716 of 2007, who claims to be an association of Private Primary School, challenging order dated 25. 09. 2007 made by the respondent authority as well as the Government Resolution dated 18. 01. 1991 with the following prayers: allow this petition. ( 2 ) DECLARE that the Government Resolution dated 18. 1. 1991 at Annexure- as unconstitutional, arbitrary and therefore requires to be quashed as it offends Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) QUASH and set aside the order dated 25. 9. 2007 (received by the petitioner on 1. 10. 2007) being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice. ( 4 ) DECLARE that having regard to the Constitutional mandate under the head of directive principle of State Policy, it is obligatory on the part of State Government to see that the children below the age of 14 having provided adequate facility of education and in order to achieve the said object, direct the State Government to modify the grant disbursement to the private primary schools which are established prior to 1977. ( 5 ) THOUGH the litigation, as narrated in the petition, has a chequered history, for the present purpose it is not necessary to refer to the same. Suffice it to state that by virtue of earlier orders made by this Court, the respondent authority was directed to grant hearing to the petitioner-Association and its members, who are 14 in number. After such hearing was granted impugned order dated 25. 09. 2007 (Annexure-B) has been made. ( 6 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners states that in so far as the 14 petitioners are concerned, they are independent private primary schools who do not have any secondary or higher secondary division and hence, are adversely affected by virtue of the decision of the respondent authority to restrict maintenance grant at a figure of Rs. 600/- p. m. Inviting attention to Rule Nos. 600/- p. m. Inviting attention to Rule Nos. 114 and 115 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 (the Rules) (though typed as Rules 125 and 125) it was contended that as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 115 of the Rules overhead expenditure was to be granted qua various items but the same does not take into consideration various other overhead expenditure like electricity, etc. That, therefore, the decision of the authority in rejecting the claim of the petitioner-Association for a higher maintenance amount was against the provisions of the Rules and the Rules could not be given a go-by on the basis of the Resolutions made by the Government. ( 7 ) THE relevant sub-Rule (3) of Rule 115 of the Rules reads as under: " (3) Subject to the instructions that may be issued by the Director from time to time educational bodies or associations conducting a number of approved schools shall be entitled to grant on overhead expenditure at three-fourths of their approved expenditure under that head. Note:- The following items of overhead expenditure are treated as approved expenditure: pay and allowances of the Administrative supervising, clerical and inferior staff; office contingency; stipends to teachers under training at the rates approved by the Government. Cost of refresher courses for teachers in the employment of the educational bodies or association; travelling allowances to teachers under training of for attending the refresher course; pay and travelling allowances relieving teachers; audit fees; (8) premise on the insurance on the lives of the permanent teachers; (9) Contributions to the provident and insurance funds; the Administrative officer shall have power to determine what is reasonable expenditure in each case with reference to the items mentioned in this Note. " ( 8 ) ON a plain reading it becomes apparent that an approved school who is entitled to grant is entitled to such grant on overhead expenditure at three-forth of the approved expenditure under that head. The note that follows stipulates that the following items of overhead expenditure are treated as approved expenditure. Therefore, even on a plain reading it is clear that only approved expenditure can be considered for the purposes of determination of the overhead expenditure and no other item. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner based on such items which are not figuring in the list of approved expenditure is unwarranted. Therefore, even on a plain reading it is clear that only approved expenditure can be considered for the purposes of determination of the overhead expenditure and no other item. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner based on such items which are not figuring in the list of approved expenditure is unwarranted. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, what is most material is that the said sub-rule (3) of Rules 115 has been deleted w. e. f. 09. 10. 1996. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not have made a claim on the basis of a sub-rule which is not in existence. ( 10 ) FURTHERMORE, as can be seen from the impugned order dated 25. 09. 2007 there are 611 granted private primary schools out of which except for the 14 schools (the petitioners) situated in Vadodara City all other schools have accepted the policy decision of the State Government in relation to the payment of salary to the teachers by the direct mode i. e. in bank accounts of the teachers directly instead of routing through the schools, and also the policy decision in relation to the maintenance grant. In the circumstances, the petitions do not merit acceptance and are accordingly summarily rejected. Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matters.