Maibam B.K. Singh, J.:- Heard Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. R. K. Nokulsana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the principal respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2005 passed by a Single Judge of this Bench in W.P.(C) No. 405 of 2004. In the said writ petition, the prayer of the present principal respondents (the writ petitioners), who are lecturers (27 in Nos.) of 5 (five) Government Aided Colleges namely, (1) Thambal Marik College, (2) Liberal College, (3) Kakching Khunou College, (4) Biramangol College and (5) Standard College at the relevant time, is mainly for directing the present appellants (the respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition) and the present pro forma respondents (the respondents No. 3 to 9 in the writ petition) to pay the UGC scale of pay given to the lecturers of Government Colleges to them also with effect from 1.9.2000 as the same is given to some of their fellow lecturers serving in the Government Aided Colleges. According to the writ petitioners, since the above said colleges, where they have been serving as lecturers, are Government Aided Colleges, having all the requisite qualifications for being Government Aided Colleges under the provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 and since they have been employed in the said colleges for providing adequate number of qualified teaching staff as per staffing patterns and other infrastructural requirements prescribed in the relevant ordinance of the Manipur University to which the said colleges are affiliated as well as relevant provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, having regards to all the relevant considerations, including their seniority positions and their appointments as lecturers of the said colleges with approval of the Government as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, the concerned authorities ought to have included them (the writ petitioners) in the respective list of the approved lecturers of the concerned colleges and thereby they (the writ petitioners) should have been allowed to get the UGC scale of pay as already allowed to the approved lecturers of the said colleges with effect from 1.9.2000. The writ petitioners' case, in effect, is that the concerned authorities have acted unreasonably, unfairly and unjustly by not including their names in the respective list of approved lecturers of the said colleges arbitrarily and thereby they have been deprived of the benefits of the UGC scale of pay given to the approved teachers of the said colleges. 3. The present appellants, who are respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition, contested the writ petition and filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying most of the allegations of the writ petitioners. According to the said respondents No. 1 and 2, the Government has nothing to do with the management, administration and payment of pay etc. of the employees of the said aided colleges and the writ petitioners were neither appointed by the Government nor as per its instructions/directions. Further, according to the respondents No. 1 and 2, the claim of the writ petitioners for conversion of their unapproved posts into the approved posts is not tenable in law and because of financial constraints, the Government has imposed ban on new appointment as well as on creation of new posts. 4. An additional affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 (the present appellants) reiterating their stands taken in their affidavit-in-opposition. 5. Three of the present proforma respondents being Nos. 28,29 and 30, who are respondents No. 3,4 and 5 respectively in the writ petition, filed their respective counter-affidavits supporting the writ petitioners' case indirectly. 5. I. A supplementary affidavit as well as the affidavit-in-reply were also filed on behalf of the writ petitioners reiterating their case and denying allegations of the respondents No. 1 and 2. 6. After hearing the parties through their respective counsel and referring to the pleading of the parties, the learned Single Judge held at para 10 of the impugned judgment and order as follows: - "10. From careful perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents as well as from the writ petition, this much is clear that approved teachers are the teachers appointed after fulfilling all the requirements under the Manipur Education Code. 1982 with the prior approval of the Director of Education (U). Government of Manipur and also within the number of teachers for a subject in a Government Aided College affiliated to the Manipur University prescribed by the said Ordinance of the Manipur University." 7. 1982 with the prior approval of the Director of Education (U). Government of Manipur and also within the number of teachers for a subject in a Government Aided College affiliated to the Manipur University prescribed by the said Ordinance of the Manipur University." 7. Thereafter, after referring the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge held at para 14 as follows: - "14. From the above discussions, keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered view that the conducts of the State respondents were inequitable. The Court in this country, which are primarily the Courts of equity, justice and good conscience cannot permit the State and the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 i.e., the Governing Bodies of the said aided colleges to defeat the right of the petitioners arising on creation of legal right-duty relationship between the petitioners and the State respondents and management of the present Government Aided College. Accordingly, this court is of the firm opinion that the following directions will be equitable to the petitioners: (1) The Committee consisting of Commissioner/Secretary (Higher Education) and Director of Education (U), Government of Manipur with the assistance of the Secretaries of the Governing Bodies of the concerned aided colleges under which the petitioners are working as lecturers shall hold an inquiry: - i) As to whether or not the petitioners were appointed after fulfilling all the requirements under the Rules i.e. Manipur Education Code, 1982 with the prior approval of the Director of Education (U), Government of Manipur? ii) As to whether or not the petitioners are, according to the seniority position of the lecturers of the concerned subjects, within the prescribed number of teachers for the concerned subjects, according to the said Ordinance of the Manipur University. (2) If the findings of the above 2(two) points are in favour of the petitioners, they should be treated as approved teachers of their Government Aided Colleges and necessary follow up action should be taken up by the State respondents for extending UGS pay scale of a teacher of the Government College of Manipur to them, keeping in view of the Para/Rule 30 of the Section IV of Chapter XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, i.e. "General Principles and Conditions" govern ing payment of grant-in-aid in the aided colleges in the State of Manipur. (3) It is made clear that the respondents should carry out the above directions within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of this judgment and order. To the extent mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed. Parties have to bear their own costs." 8. In this appeal, the present appellants (the respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition) are challenging the legality of the impugned judgment and order mainly on the following grounds: - 8.1. Firstly, since the higher education including the College Education is under Entry 66 of List-1 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, Parliament alone is competent to make law for the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and Colleges affiliated to them and since the University Grants Commission (in short "UGC") has made regulations defining the qualification of teaching staff of Universities and Colleges affiliated to them under Section 26 (1)(e) and (g) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the executive instructions in the Manipur Education Code, 1982 stand superceded. 8.2. Secondly, since the Manipur Education Code, 1982 being an executive instructions prepared mainly for facilitating payment of grant-in-aid to private colleges and schools through their governing bodies, does not have the force of law, it does not confer any legal right on the writ petitioners for the enforcement of any provision of the said Code. 8.3. The learned Advocate General vehemently submits that the impugned judgment and order, if implemented, will have the effect of appointing the writ petitioners on regular basis contrary to the constitutional scheme of employment and also will ultimately render the State Exchequer bankrupt for years in as much as hundred and thousand of teachers of private Govt. aided schools and colleges will have to be given the scale of pay equal to that of teachers of Government schools and colleges. 9. Education is considered as the singlemost powerful tool for the upliftment and progress of diverse communities residing in this country. So far as children of the age of 6 to 14 years are concerned, there is legal obligation on the part of the State to provide free and compulsory education. By the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2001, Article 21A of the Constitution of India was inserted. So far as children of the age of 6 to 14 years are concerned, there is legal obligation on the part of the State to provide free and compulsory education. By the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2001, Article 21A of the Constitution of India was inserted. As per this Article, the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State, may by law, determine. Though there is no such legal obligation on the part of the State to provide free and compulsory education to these persons above the age of 14 years, considering the importance of proper education to students above the age of 14 years also on whom the future of the society depends, the State Government has established many higher secondary schools and colleges also at different places for providing education at higher secondary and degree levels. There are also many private colleges which have been established by educationists, philanthropists or public spirited persons with the object of either providing quality education to those who are in need of it at degree level or for making education at the said level available at places where there is lack of adequate number of colleges. Most of these private colleges cannot operate without the support of aid from the State. It becomes necessary in order to provide inexpensive education to the students to seek aid from the State. The State Government provides grant in aid to private colleges with a view to ensure smooth running of the said colleges and to ensure that standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of fund. In such cases, the State Government is entitled to make regulations concerning the general principles and conditions governing the payment of grant in aid in the aided colleges. In the State of Manipur, the relevant regulations is at Section IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982. 10. Para 7 of the said Section IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 states about conditions for grant-in-aid as follows: - "A college applying for grant-in-aid shall be an institution affiliated to the University of Manipur and fulfill all conditions of affiliation. 10. Para 7 of the said Section IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 states about conditions for grant-in-aid as follows: - "A college applying for grant-in-aid shall be an institution affiliated to the University of Manipur and fulfill all conditions of affiliation. The management of the college shall also have to satisfy the Director of Education that the college is well managed and maintains satisfactory discipline and acceptable standard of academic efficiency." 11. There is no dispute that the relevant ordinance of Manipur University approved by the Syndicate under Resolution Nos. 8/145/7397 prescribes the quantum of infrastructure required to be provided by the affiliated colleges. The relevant ordinance is quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. 12. Further, para 18 (a) of the Section-IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 clearly states that the aided colleges shall have to employ adequate number of qualified teaching and other staff as may be required by the University. It is also provided that prior approval of the Government would be required for opening a new subject or a new section in a class. Para 18 (b) of the said Section-IV, Chaper-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 states that the teaching staff including the Principal shall be remunerated at the usual rates of pay and allowances including Special pay/allowances for Vice Principal and special pay/charge allowance for Head of Departments prescribed for similar posts and under similar terms and conditions as under the Government of Manipur. It is also provided in the para 18 (b) (1) that such staff shall possess the minimum qualifications laid down by the University and their appointment shall be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Government in this behalf and prior approval of the Director will be necessary in each specific case. It is to be noted that Section 1, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 is the Manipur Aided Colleges Employees (Services) Rules, 1974 and it prescribes the method of recruitment of teaching staff of the Government aided colleges. Many other provisos are also provided in respect of para 18 of the said Section-IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 which are quoted fully in the impugned judgment and order. 13. Many other provisos are also provided in respect of para 18 of the said Section-IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 which are quoted fully in the impugned judgment and order. 13. Para 30 of Section IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 deals with the method of calculation of grant-in-aid for introduction of pay scale. It clearly states that in calculating grant-in-aid for introduction of pay scale, deficit system shall be followed, that is to say, the grant-in-aid will be calculated on the basis of difference between approved income and approved expenditure. The approved income is to be determined in the manner given at para 30 A, Sec. IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982. In respect of the approved expenditure, para 30 B, Section IV, Chapter-XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 states that it will include the salaries to Lecturers, Clerks, Librarian, Laboratory Attendant, Physical Instructor, Grade-IV Employees and Government's Share of Provident Fund Contributions. It is further said that the number of persons of the above categories to be entertained in a college for calculation of approved expenditure will be fixed by the Government of Manipur. Consequently, the State Government has the power of deciding as to who is/are to be included in the list of approved lecturers of the Government aided colleges for the purpose of giving scale of pay given to lecturers in Government Colleges i.e. the UGC scale of pay. However, it will not be right to say that the State Government can exercise this power arbitrarily or whimsically. Since the State Government provides grant-in-aid to private colleges with a view to ensure smooth running of the colleges and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of fund, the State Government will have to exercise its power of deciding as to who is/are to be included in the respective list of approved lecturers of the colleges fairly, justly and reasonably by taking into consideration all the relevant factors including the purpose for which the grant-in-aid is provided to private colleges. 14. There is no any statute or statutory rules in respect of the matters dealt by the Manipur Education Code, 1982. Only the provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, which are in the nature of administrative directions or instructions, are holding the field. 14. There is no any statute or statutory rules in respect of the matters dealt by the Manipur Education Code, 1982. Only the provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, which are in the nature of administrative directions or instructions, are holding the field. It is also true that an administrative direction or instruction does not normally confer any legal and enforceable right on an individual or impose an obligation on the administration. Even if the administrative direction is ignored or misapplied by the administration, the affected individual cannot claim any legal remedy. In the light of the above consideration, the writ petitioners have apparently no legal right to enforce the provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 merely on the ground that the said provisions have been ignored or misapplied by the State Government. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not have been proper and just to dismiss the writ petition merely on the ground that no legal right had been conferred by the said provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 upon the writ petitioners and that they were not having any enforceable legal right. 15. In the writ petition, the writ petitioners are alleging that the colleges, where they have been serving as lecturers, are Government aided colleges having all the requisite qualifications for being Government aided colleges under the Manipur Education Code, 1982 that the writ petitioners have been employed in the said colleges for providing necessary number of qualified teaching staff as per staffing pattern and other infrastrucrural requirements prescribed in the relevant ordinance of Manipur University to which the said colleges are affiliated as well as in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 and as such considering all the relevant factors including the seniority positions of the writ petitioners and their appointment as lecturers of the said colleges with approval of the State Government, the concerned authorities ought to have included them (the writ petitioners) in the respective list of approved lecturers of the said colleges and thereby they (the writ petitioners) should have been allowed to get the UGC scale of pay as already allowed to approved lecturers of the said colleges with effect from 1.9.2000. In effect, the case of the writ petitioners is that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they have legitimate expectation of their names being included in the respective list of approved lecturers of the said colleges after due consideration of all the relevant facts and that by not including them in the respective list of approved lecturers of the said colleges uptil now despite request made in that connection, the authorities have acted unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably and consequently, they (the writ petitioners) have been deprived of the UGC scale of pay arbitrarily and whimsically. In the above circumstances, the writ petition cannot be treated as one filed merely for the enforcement of the provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 which are in the nature of administrative directions or instructions. The writ petition has to be treated as one filed challenging the inaction on the part of the State Government as regards the non-inclusion of the names of the writ petitioners in the relevant approved list of the lecturers of the said colleges as an arbitrary or whimsical action. If there has been such an inaction on the part of the State Government, that will be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is the fundamental right guaranteed to other persons. For the purpose of determining if there has been infringement of the said fundamental right of the writ petitioners, there was no wrong or illegality on the part of the learned Single Judge in entertaining the writ petition. 16. It is also well settled that to satisfy the requirements of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectation of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of the power apart from affecting the bonafide of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. The same consideration will apply in respect of an inaction on the part of a State when no decision is taken by the State for no appreciable reason even though situations demand a decision. Thus, there is no any unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority posseses powers only to use them for public good. The same consideration will apply in respect of an inaction on the part of a State when no decision is taken by the State for no appreciable reason even though situations demand a decision. Thus, there is no any unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority posseses powers only to use them for public good. The said expectation of the writ petitioners regarding inclusion of their names in the respective list of approved lecturers of the said colleges after due consideration of all the relevant facts cannot be considered merely as a wish, a desire or a hope on the part of the writ petitioners. The legitimacy of the expectation can be inferred from the facts, alleged by the petitioners, that they have been appointed after fulfilling all the requirements under the Manipur Education Code, 1982 with the prior approval of the Director of Education (U), Government of Manipur that they are, according to their respective seniority position, within the minimum prescribed number of lecturers for the concerned subjects as per the relevant provisions of the ordinance of the Manipur University to which their colleges are affiliated read with the relevant provisions of Manipur Education Code, 1982 regarding the need for giving of remuneration to the teaching staff of Government aided colleges at the usual rates of pay and allowances prescribed for similar posts under the Government of Manipur and also regarding the calculation of grant in aid to be given to the Government aided colleges. The said relevant pro visions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982 giving the foundation for the legitimate expectation in favour of the writ petitioners are in the nature of representations made by the State undertaking for giving aid to the said colleges so that the teaching staff of the said colleges duly appointed in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code may get the scale of pay and allowances given to lecturers/teachers of Government colleges i.e. the UGC scale of pay. In the facts and circumstances, the expectation of the writ petitioners is justifiably legitimate and protectable. It is also in consonance with the public interest in improving the standard of college education. In the facts and circumstances, the expectation of the writ petitioners is justifiably legitimate and protectable. It is also in consonance with the public interest in improving the standard of college education. The said legitimate expectation gives the writ petitioners sufficient locus standi for judicial review of the inaction on the part of the State Government as well as for praying to direct the concerned respondents to pass an appropriate order about the matter. There was no illegality in entertaining the writ petition. 17. Moreover, education is a matter in which an element of public interest is involved. When the relevant provisions of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, which are in the nature of administrative directions/instructions direct for payment of remuneration to the teaching staff of the Government aided colleges at the usual rates of pay and allowances prescribed for similar posts under similar terms and conditions under the Government of Manipur, the members of the teaching staff of the Government aided colleges are entitled to enforce parity in employment through Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17.1. In K. Krishnamacharyulu & Ors. Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering & Anr., (1997) 3 SCC 571 , the Hon'ble Apex Court interfered with the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, who had been serving with 6 (six) others as laboratory assistants in the respondent private college, claiming parity in respect of pay scale with Government employees. The Hon'ble Apex Court held at para Nos. 3 and 4 as follows:- "3. The admitted position is that the appellant and six others had been appointed on daily wages to the post of lab Assistants as non-teaching staff of the respondent-private college. They were being paid daily wages. A writ petition and appeal seeking equal pay having been dismissed, they have filed the present appeal for direction to pay them equal pay for equal work on a par with the other Government employees. 4. It is not in dispute that executive instructions issued by the Government have given them the right to claim the pay scales so as to be on a par with the Government employees. 4. It is not in dispute that executive instructions issued by the Government have given them the right to claim the pay scales so as to be on a par with the Government employees. The question is when there are no statutory rules issued in that behalf, and the institution, at the relevant time, being not in receipt of any grants-in-aid; whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable ? In view of the long line of decisions of this court holding that when there is an interest created by the Government in an institution to impart education, which is a fundamental right of the citizens, the teachers who impart the education get an element of public interest in the performance of their duties. As a consequence, the element of public interest requires regulation of the conditions of service of those employees on a par wjth Government employees. In consequence, are they also not entitled to the parity of the pay scales as per the executive instructions of the Government ? It is not also in dispute that all the persons who filed the writ petition along with the appellant had later withdrawn from the writ petition and thereafter the respondent-Management paid the salaries on a par with the Government employees. Since the appellants are insisting upon enforcement of their right through the judicial pressure, they need and seek the protection of law. We are of the view that the State has obligation to provide facilities and opportunities to the people to avail of the right to education. The private institutions cater to the need of providing educational opportunities. The teacher duly appointed to a post in the private institution also is entitled to seek enforcement of the orders issued by the Government. The question is as to which forum one should approach. The High Court has held that the remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act. When an element of public interest is created and the institution is catering to that element, the teacher, being the arm of the institution, is also entitled to avail of the remedy provided under Article 226; the jurisdiction part is very wide. It would be a different position, if the remedy is a private law remedy. So, they cannot be denied the same benefit which is available to others. It would be a different position, if the remedy is a private law remedy. So, they cannot be denied the same benefit which is available to others. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is maintainable. They are entitled to equal pay so as to be a par with Government employees under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution." 17.2. The present principal respondents (the writ petitioners) who have been serving as lecturers of Government aided colleges are in better position than the appellant in the above said case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, who are only the employee of appellant private college. In the light of the above considerations, we cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed as non-maintainable. 18. In the facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, the portion of the impugned judgment and order directing in effect the concerned respondents to constitute a Committee and hold an enquiry in respect of the two specified points within the specified time is reasonable, fair and just in as much as it has the effect of complying with the procedural aspect of the said legitimate expectation of the writ petitioners, i.e. their legitimate expectation of having their case considered for inclusion of their names in the respective list of approved lecturers of the said colleges by taking into consideration all the relevant factors as expeditiously as possible. There is no illegality in the said portion of the judgment and order and as such, no interference is called for in respect of the said portion. 19. The remaining portion of the impugned judgment and order directing the concerned respondents that in case of finding on the said two points in favour of the writ petitioners, they should be treated as approved teachers/lecturers of their respective Government aided colleges and that the concerned respondents should take up necessary follow up action for extending the UGC scale of pay of teachers/lecturers of the Government colleges to them by keeping in view the relevant para 30 of Section IV of Chapter -XI of the Manipur Education Code, 1982, substantially grants the relief sought by the writ petitioners. The said remaining portion of the impugned judgment and order proceeds on an assumption that in case of finding on the said two specified points in favour of the writ petitioners, there would not be any option on the part of the State Government but to grant the said relief. In our considered opinion, since there is no any provision in any statutory law or rules conferring any legal right to the writ petitioners for treating them as approved teachers/lecturers in respect of their said colleges in case of finding on the said two specified points in their favour, it is not legally correct to grant the said relief straightaway. In our considered opinion, the above said remaining portion of the impugned judgment and order relates to substantive aspect of the legitimate expectation of the writ petitioners i.e. their expectation of a favourable decision regarding giving of the UGC scale of pay of lecturers of Government colleges. The said remaining portion of the impugned judgment and order satisfies the substantive aspect of the legitimate expectation of the writ petitioners. However, the principle of the substantive legitimate expectation, i.e., the expectation of the said favourable decision has a very limited scope. The said principle does not give scope to grant relief straightaway by the court as no crystallized legal right as such is involved. The protection of such a legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment/satisfaction of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision, then the decision maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. In the case before us, we have ascertained that the State Government has not yet considered and decided if the writ petitioners are to be included in the respective list of approved teachers/lecturers of the said colleges or not. In the light of the above discussion, it will be proper and just to let the State Government decide if the writ petitioners are to be included in the respective list of approved lecturers of the concerned colleges by taking into consideration of all the relevant factors including the finding in respect of the said two specified points which are required to be inquired into by constituting a Committee as per the first portion of the impugned judgment and order. If the writ petitioners are aggrieved by any decision of the State Government, they may challenge the same on valid grounds and pray for interfering with the same by the Court. Accordingly, the concerned respondents are directed to make a decision properly on the points if the writ petitioners are to be included in the respective list of approved teachers/lecturers of the concerned colleges or not for the purpose of determining if they are to be given the UGC scale of pay of teachers of Government colleges by taking all the relevant factors as mentioned above. If the decision in respect of the above said matter is made by the State Government in favour of the writ petitioners, necessary steps are to be taken for allowing them to get the benefits promptly. The whole exercise is to be completed within a period of five months from the date of this order. 20. By proceeding in the manner stated above, there will be no question of giving approval for the UGC scale of pay to unnecessary and unqualified teachers/lecturers appointed by the governing bodies of the said colleges without prior approval of the Director of Education or in violation of the provisions of Manipur Education Code, 1982. It cannot also be said that by proceeding in the manner stated above, there will be effect of appointing the writ petitioners on regular basis contrary to the constitutional scheme of employment. Further, it cannot also be said that there will be effect of rendering the State Exchequer bankrupt in case of inclusion of the writ petitioners in the respect list of approved lecturers of the concerned colleges for giving the UGC scale of pay in as much as the State Government itself has to make the said decision and also has to decide if the grant-in-aid has to be given or not to the colleges. We do not think that the State Government will go on extending the grant-in-aid unnecessarily and unreasonably to the extent of causing bankruptcy to the Exchequer. In any case, no discrimination is permissible on the part of the State Government in giving approval to teachers/lecturers of Government aided colleges for the purpose of giving the UGC scale of pay on the ground of paucity of funds. In any case, no discrimination is permissible on the part of the State Government in giving approval to teachers/lecturers of Government aided colleges for the purpose of giving the UGC scale of pay on the ground of paucity of funds. We are also of the opinion that by proceeding in the manner stated above there will be no violation of the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 21. In the light of the above discussion and for the reasons given, this appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. The first portion of the impugned judgment and order regarding constitution of a Committee to hold an enquiry in respect of the specified two points is not interfered with. The remaining portion of the impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent mentioned above. This appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.