Judgment :- (P.K. Misra, J.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The appellants in different writ appeals and the petitioners in the connected writ petitions, which are directed to be taken up for hearing along with such writ appeals, have been filed by different minority institutions. 3. The basic question raised in all these litigations is the validity of the instructions regarding payment of salary to the lecturers or the teachers or the staff of the minority institutions directly through Electronic Clearance System (in short "ECS") into the bank account of the concerned employee. 4. The procedure, which was hitherto being followed for payment of salary to the approved staff of the aided institutions, can be briefly described in order to appreciate the contentions now raised. The Correspondents of the concerned educational institutions submit their monthly bills containing the details regarding pay and allowance of the staff and also the details relating to statutory deductions to be made such as amount payable towards Teachers Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Income Tax, Group Insurance Scheme, etc. After approval by the concerned authorities belonging to the Department of Education, such monthly bills are forwarded with the Treasury Officer, who releases the staff grant after making the necessary statutory deductions, and thereafter such amount is either credited to the account of the concerned educational institution through the bank or in places where such bank accounts are not available, released in cash which is received by the Correspondent on behalf of such educational institution. Thereafter, the concerned school authorities deduct the non-statutory deductions such as payable towards LIC premium, staff welfare fund, etc., and thereafter disburse the salary to the concerned member of the staff by way of cash. According to the averments made by the appellants / petitioners, at times, without waiting for the actual receipt of the grant-in-aid, the Management of the concerned institution pay the salary to the staff on the due date from the Managements fund available with the school. While such method of payment was in vogue, which was in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant statute and the rules, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education and the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer issued letters instructing the Treasuries to disburse such amount payable to the approved staff through the method of Electronic Clearance System. While such method of payment was in vogue, which was in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant statute and the rules, the Joint Director of Collegiate Education and the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer issued letters instructing the Treasuries to disburse such amount payable to the approved staff through the method of Electronic Clearance System. Such instructions were apparently issued on the basis of the order passed by the State Government regarding payment of salary to the Government employees through ECS. 5. The writ petitions were filed by the Minority Institutions challenging such method of payment. Learned single Judge, on consideration of the contentions raised by both the parties, refused to interfere with the instructions issued and dismissed the writ petitions by observing that no legal right of the minority institution had been violated. The three writ appeals in question have been filed against such common order passed by the learned single Judge. The connected writ petitions, wherein similar relief had been claimed by the minority institutions, have been tagged along with the writ appeals for convenient disposal as similar questions are raised in such writ petitions. 6. In all such matters, the main contention raised by the appellants / petitioners is to the effect that as per the extant statutory provisions holding the field, salary of the staff is required to be paid through the educational agency or the Secretary of the Institution and introduction of payment for the concerned staff directly through ECS has adversely affected the right of the minority institution to manage the institution thereby violating the Constitutional right as well as the statutory right. 7. The allied contention raised by the learned counsels appearing for the appellants / petitioners is to the effect that the statutory provisions including the statutory rules do not contemplate payment of salary through ECS and, therefore, the Subordinate officers, namely, the Joint Director and the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer had no authority in law to issue such instructions. In this connection, it is also contended that even though reliance has been placed by the concerned educational authority on G.O.Ms.No.330 Finance (Salaries) Department dated 31.8.2005, such G.O., is not at all applicable regarding payment of salary to the members of the staff in the aided institutions. 8. In this connection, it is also contended that even though reliance has been placed by the concerned educational authority on G.O.Ms.No.330 Finance (Salaries) Department dated 31.8.2005, such G.O., is not at all applicable regarding payment of salary to the members of the staff in the aided institutions. 8. In the present legal battles, we are concerned with either payment to the staff of the aided colleges or the aided schools established by the minority. So far as colleges are concerned, the parent Act is the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as "the Private Colleges Act". Such Act, which had received the assent of the President has been enacted to regulate the conditions of service of teachers employed in private colleges and to make the rules relating to managing bodies and payment of grants to such colleges statutory. Section 10 of such Act envisages that the Government may pay grant to the private college. Section 23 provides that pay and allowances of teachers and other persons employed in a private college shall be paid on or before such day of every month, at such rate and in such manner and by or through such authority, officer or person as may be prescribed. Even though the expression "prescribed" has not been defined, it is obvious that it means as prescribed by the Rules. 9. Section 53(1) empowers the State to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and Section 53(2) indicates about certain matters. As per Section 53(2)(d), rules can be made for giving grants to private colleges. In accordance with the aforesaid enabling provision, the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, hereinafter referred to as "the Private Colleges Rules" has been framed. Rule 7 prescribes that subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time, every college maybe paid grants specified in sub-rule (2). Rule 15 being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “15. Pay and allowances of teachers and other persons employed in college to be paid in the prescribed form. - Every teacher and other person employed in a college shall be paid his pay and allowances for each month on the first working day of the succeeding month. Rule 15 being relevant is extracted hereunder:- “15. Pay and allowances of teachers and other persons employed in college to be paid in the prescribed form. - Every teacher and other person employed in a college shall be paid his pay and allowances for each month on the first working day of the succeeding month. Such payments shall be made, by cheque or by demand draft and not by cash, by the Secretary of the committee or in his absence, for any reason whatsoever, by the person duly authorized by the educational agency.” 10. It is contended that, as per the Rule 15, the payment is required to be made by cheque or demand draft by the Secretary to the concerned teacher and the instructions now issued thus obviously affect the right of the management, besides being contrary to the specific Rule. It is also submitted that by introduction of ECS., the control of the Management over the concerned teachers would become minimal and thereby the right of the minority institution to manage its own educational institution would be affected. 11. So far as the minority schools are concerned, it is submitted that as per the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977, salary is required to be paid in cash and the instruction issued being contrary to the statutory rules, should not be followed. 12. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977, is as follows:- “5. Pay and allowance of teachers and other persons employed in minority schools to be paid in the prescribed manner.--The procedure for payment of pay and allowances from State funds to teachers and other persons employed in minority schools shall be as in Annexure I appended to these rules.” Annexure I to such Rules contain the procedure for payment of pay and allowances. Paragraph 1. (a), which has been pressed into service by the counsels appearing for the minority schools is to the following effect. “1.(a)Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools in Non-panchayat Union areas.-- The Correspondent/Manager of the School, shall submit a monthly statement containing the details of teachers and other persons employed, their pay and allowances etc., for the month to the Deputy Inspector of Schools. “1.(a)Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools in Non-panchayat Union areas.-- The Correspondent/Manager of the School, shall submit a monthly statement containing the details of teachers and other persons employed, their pay and allowances etc., for the month to the Deputy Inspector of Schools. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, after scrutiny of the above statement, shall submit the same to the District Educational Officer concerned with his recommendation. The District Educational Officer shall release the teaching grant bills to the Correspondent/Manager of the School marking a copy of his sanction order to the treasury and who shall disburse the pay and allowance to the teachers and other persons employed in a minority school on the 1st day of every month or on any date authorized by the Director of School Education.” 13. On a reading of the aforesaid rule, along with Annexure, it cannot be said as an inexorable condition has been imposed that the salary has to be paid to the concerned teacher in person by the Management and not through any other method. Such rule only provides for payment of grant and proper accounting of such payment. From the above rule, it cannot be said that the Management of the school has the right to receive the amount from the Government and thereafter disburse to the staff or the teachers. There is only an obligation on the Management to pay the salary but it cannot be said that any right has been conferred. 14. It is not in dispute that even under the present impugned instruction, payment can be made by the Treasury directly to the account of the concerned teacher only if the pay bill is signed, certified and forwarded by the Management. Thus, if any particular teacher is not entitled to entire salary or part of the salary on account of absence or any other reason, obviously in the pay bill of the concerned teacher such aspect would be reflected. Therefore, it is not that the control of the management over the concerned teacher is anyway whittled down. 15. Learned counsels have also contended that the very act of the Management of the Institution giving the salary to the teachers on the pay day has its own impact or has its own aura which could not be curtailed on introduction of payment through ECS. 15. Learned counsels have also contended that the very act of the Management of the Institution giving the salary to the teachers on the pay day has its own impact or has its own aura which could not be curtailed on introduction of payment through ECS. This again is a matter of sentiment which cannot form the basis for claiming a right. It cannot be said that any right of the management is affected in any perceptible manner. 16. We have been taken through the various provisions contained in the statute and the rules. We do not find anywhere that any right has been conferred on the management regarding disbursement of salary in any particular manner. The statute and the rules are applicable to all private educational institutions, whether aided or otherwise. It can only be said that such provisions touching upon the manner of payment of salary to the staff only lay down certain guidelines and certain procedural aspects. Essentially such provisions have been incorporated with a view to ensure proper payment to the concerned staff. We do not find anywhere any semblance of right conferred on the management so that the alleged breach of the provision can be made a foundation for filing a writ petition. 17. Mr. Issac Mohanlal, appearing for some of the appellants, has tried to highlight that certain inconvenience would be caused to the teachers as there are many places where banking facilities are not available. 18. Factually, we do not find any basis for such submission. Even otherwise assuming that some teachers would face inconvenience, it would be always open to such teachers to make representation to appropriate authorities regarding payment of salary in the manner being followed hitherto and not through ECS. We have no doubt in our mind that if any such representation comes from any of the employees, such representation would be considered by the appropriate authorities. 19. It is to be noted that even though there is a fundamental right to establish a minority institution, there is no fundamental right to claim payment of aid as a matter of right and the question of payment of aid depends upon the provisions made by the State Government. Money is paid by the State Government for the salary of the concerned teacher. It is therefore for the authorities concerned to issue necessary instructions. 20. Money is paid by the State Government for the salary of the concerned teacher. It is therefore for the authorities concerned to issue necessary instructions. 20. Learned counsels for the appellants and the petitioners contended that in fact no decision has been taken by the Government relating to payment of salary through ECS and is only the subordinate authorities in the Education Department who have issued such instructions. 21. In this connection, it is to be noted that G.O.Ms.No.330 dated 31.8.2005 has been issued by Finance (Salaries) Department, whereunder it has been directed that the ECS as ordered by G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 3.1.2003 shall be extended in a phased manner to all the District Treasuries / SubTreasuries also depending upon the infrastructure available in the offices of Treasuries, Banks attached to the Treasuries and the offices of the Drawing and Disbursing Officers. Since it is a direction to the Treasuries, it can be reasonably interpreted that the Education Department did not act without jurisdiction in giving the instructions relating to payment of salary through ECS. At any rate, since there is no violation of any right of the Management, we do not think it would be appropriate for the Courts to interfere in such matter at the instance of the Management of various schools and colleges, particularly when the persons concerned, namely, the members of the teaching staff, have not raised any protest. On the other hand, it appears that many of the teachers have welcomed such method as is apparent from the affidavit filed by the intervener, which is an Association of teachers. 22. It is also to be noted that neither in the Grant-in-Aid Code nor in any of the Rules relating to payment of grant-in-aid, it was specifically envisaged that grant-in-aid has to be paid in a particular manner. In the absence of any specific procedure, it is always open to the authorities concerned to adopt any reasonable method to lay down the procedure relating to payment of grant-in-aid salary. 23. Learned counsels for the appellants and the petitioners have also contended that certain voluntary contributions made by the teachers are also adjusted at the time of payment of salary to the concerned teacher. If some statutory liabilities are to be met, obviously such liabilities can be adjusted and shown in the pay bill. 23. Learned counsels for the appellants and the petitioners have also contended that certain voluntary contributions made by the teachers are also adjusted at the time of payment of salary to the concerned teacher. If some statutory liabilities are to be met, obviously such liabilities can be adjusted and shown in the pay bill. If there is any voluntary payment to be made, it is for the concerned teacher to make such payment in accordance with any convenient method and at any rate we cannot assume that the teachers are inconvenienced by the introduction of the present method which has the potentiality of simplifying the procedure of payment and facilitating more efficient management. 24. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in any of the appeals and the writ petitions and all are accordingly dismissed without any costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.