Judgment :- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether this Court can order to scrap the existing scheme of Computer Education in schools, for the reason that, according to its perspective, the present scheme will not deliver the goods and order to frame a better scheme; and also to direct creation of sufficient teaching posts to implement the new scheme. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, who was a student studying in the 8th standard of G.V. Higher Secondary School, Desamangalam, Thrissur, seeking a direction to the appellants not to make information Technology a compulsory subject for the examinations in the High Schools for the year 2008 or thereafter. She also prayed that a direction may be issued to the appellants to make the said subject optional in the High School. There was a further prayer to direct the appellants to create adequate posts of teachers in High Schools and prescribe qualifications for such posts, for imparting training to the students in the subject Information Technology. Other incidental reliefs were also sought. According to the petitioner, there are no qualified teachers in the High Schools to teach the subject Information Technology. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to create sufficient posts and prescribe qualifications for the same, so that the said subject is taught by qualified hands. 3. The 2nd appellant, Director of Public Instructions, filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. According to the 2nd appellant, the scheme of computer education in the schools, called 'I.T. @ Schools', was meant to impart computer literacy to the students. The teachers are given training in the subject by master trainers, so that they can learn and teach their subjects better. The students were also given exposure in the subject of Information Technology to enable them to learn different subjects taught in the school better, using Information Technology as a tool. It was not meant to make them computer experts, it was submitted. 4. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, found that the scheme 'I.T. @ School' should be revamped and updated, so as to achieve the goal of creating a new generation of thinkers, professionals, scientists, technologists, etc from among the students. It was not meant to make them computer experts, it was submitted. 4. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, found that the scheme 'I.T. @ School' should be revamped and updated, so as to achieve the goal of creating a new generation of thinkers, professionals, scientists, technologists, etc from among the students. After taking note of the great relevance of information Technology in the modern world, the Court found the need for creating sufficient teaching posts in the said subject. Based on the said findings, the learned Judge issued the following directions: "15. Therefore it has become necessary to issue directions to respondents 1 & 2 to create adequate posts of qualified teachers in the Government aided High Schools in the State as well as in the Government Schools and to prescribe the qualifications for such posts for imparting education and training to the student in the subject information Technology. 16. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director of Public instructions, Thiruvananthapuram to prepare a revised project report for implementing quality education in information Technology. The D.P.I. shall submit the project report to the Secretary to Government, General Education Department for approval. The project report shall be submitted within a period of three months from today. The project report shall also contain recommendation to introduce updated computers, re-orientation of curriculum, other teaching aids and infrastructure facilities etc. The Secretary to Government, General Education Department shall also take immediate consequent actions in this regard taking note of the poor educational background of the High School students in the subject, information Technology in the aided and Government Sector. The Secretary to Government, General Education Department shall pass appropriate orders within 2 months from the date of receipt of the project report. There will be a further direction to the Government to prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by persons engaged for teaching information Technology. This shall be done within a period of 3 months thereafter. The registry shall send copies of this judgment of the Chief Secretary to Government, the Secretary to Government, General Education Department and to the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram, immediately." 5. Feelings aggrieved by the above directions, the respondents in the writ petition have preferred this appeal. They say, this Court has no power to direct to create posts or prescribe qualifications for them. Feelings aggrieved by the above directions, the respondents in the writ petition have preferred this appeal. They say, this Court has no power to direct to create posts or prescribe qualifications for them. They also pointed out that the existing scheme, which was adopted after elaborate study and consultation at different levels, stands set aside by reason of the direction of the learned single Judge to frame a new scheme for imparting instruction in Information Technology to the students. According to the appellants, the said direction is illegal and unwarranted. 6. We heard learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. The learned counsel, relying on Section 10 of the Kerala Education Act, submitted that the Government have a duty to prescribe qualifications for various posts in the schools. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the direction issued by the learned single Judge. Only qualified teachers can impart training in the subject Information Technology, taught in the schools having regard to its syllabus. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the appeal. 7. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. Whether new posts of teachers should be created to teach the subject of Information Technology or the existing teachers should be trained and utilized for the said purpose is a policy matter for the Government to decide. Any such decision will have financial implications and may impinge upon the budget allocations cleared by the legislature. This Court has no power or authority to issue directions to the Government, on the facts of this case, to create adequate number of posts to teach the subject of Information Technology. A mandamus will be issued from this Court, if only it is shown that the petitioner has got a legal right and the official respondents have a corresponding duty to create teaching posts for the above said subject. Rights flow from statute, contract or custom. No Statute has been brought to our notice, which confers a right on the petitioner to have adequate number of teaching posts created in the Information Technology subject and, therefore, no mandamus could have been issued from this Court for the said purpose. In this context, it is appropriate to quote the following passage from the decision of the Apex court in Mani Subrit v. State of Haryana [AIR 1977 SC 276]. In this context, it is appropriate to quote the following passage from the decision of the Apex court in Mani Subrit v. State of Haryana [AIR 1977 SC 276]. "It is elementary that it is to be re-stated that none can ask for mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something." Therefore, the direction in the judgment under appeal to create posts to teach Information Technology is unsustainable. 8. Section 10 of the Act comes into play when a post is already created. In this case, no post is created, nor the provisions in Chapter 31 of the Kerala Education Rules provide for a teaching post in Information Technology. Therefore, the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, relying on Section 10 of the Kerala Education Act, are plainly untenable. Even assuming a post is created, the prescription of qualification for the said post is essentially a legislative function for the exercise of which, no writ can be issued by this Court. See the decision in Narinder Chand Hem Raj and other Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, H.P. and others [AIR 1971 SC 2399], wherein it was held as follows: "But the exercise of that power, whether by the legislature or by its delegate is an exercise of a legislative power. The fact that the power was delegated to the executive does not convert that power into an executive or administrative power. No court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact." (Emphasis supplied) In view of the above legal position, the direction issued in paragraph 15 of the judgment under appeal is vacated. 9. The directions issued in paragraph 16 also could not have been issued by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Government to take a decision in these matters. 9. The directions issued in paragraph 16 also could not have been issued by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Government to take a decision in these matters. Whether the existing scheme for imparting instruction in Information Technology in the schools should be revised etc. are matters exclusively within the realm of policy of the Government. In this context, it is apposite to quote the following words of Benjamin N. Cardozo in his "Judicial Process":- "The Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to 'the primordial necessity of order in the social life.'" 10. If the directions of the learned single Judge are implemented, the same will have ramifications on the budget allocations already made. This court cannot issue any direction which will have such effect. See the decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Umed Ram Sharma and other [(1986) 2 SCC 68], wherein it was held as follows:- "21. There are detailed instructions regarding the preparation, submission etc. of application, for re-appropriation. The sum and substance of the said requirement are that total sanction of bill for a project is within the domain of the legislature and the executive has no power to exceed the total sanction without the consent or assent of the legislature and the court cannot impinge upon that field of legislature. The executive, however, on the appreciation of the priorities can determine the manner of priorities to be presented to the legislature. The court cannot also, in our opinion, impinge upon the judgment of the executive as to the priorities." 22. ….. So far as the additional grant of the sum was required, it is entirely in the domain of the legislature to sanction it or not. The members of the legislature know the needs of the people. The court cannot also, in our opinion, impinge upon the judgment of the executive as to the priorities." 22. ….. So far as the additional grant of the sum was required, it is entirely in the domain of the legislature to sanction it or not. The members of the legislature know the needs of the people. Under the Constitution, they are authorised and entitled to fix the priorities for the expenditure to satisfy the basic needs of the people, upon the judgment and recommendation of the executive. XXX XXX XXX 27. …… but it is primarily within the domain of the legislature and the executive to decide the priority as well as to determine the urgency. Judicial review of the administrative action or inaction where there is an obligation for action should be with caution and not in haste." (emphasis supplied) 11. Recently, this court has occasion to consider about the issuance of directions to the Government to sanction Higher Secondary Schools which will result in affecting the budget allocations made for various subjects, in Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association Vs. State of Kerala [2008 (2) KLT 879]. In the said decision, it was held as follows:- "11. The sanctioning of new schools as mentioned earlier will always come within the realm of policy. Even if there is educational need, the Government can decide not to sanction any schools, having regard to its financial position. The resources of the Government are limited. There are several competing claims for allotment of funds. A person working in the field of health would like to have the maximum funds allotted for the said field, so that all the Government hospitals are run properly and new hospitals are opened wherever necessary. A person interested in literature would like to see the Government to allot more funds to encourage literary activities and support the activities of Sahitya Academy etc. Likewise, a person interested in education would like to have the maximum funds allotted for education in every year's budget. But, the Government have to do a balancing act, taking into account the competing claims of various sectors. While considering the point whether this Court can interfere with the fixation of priorities in the matter of allotment of funds, we think, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v. Cambridge Health Authority , ex.p B(1995) 2 All.E.R.129). While considering the point whether this Court can interfere with the fixation of priorities in the matter of allotment of funds, we think, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v. Cambridge Health Authority , ex.p B(1995) 2 All.E.R.129). It was a case concerning the validity of the decision of the Health Authority not to allot funds for the treatment of a child, as the chances of success of treatment were remote and there were other claimants for the limited funds available with the Authority. Though the Divisional Court interfered with the decision of the Health Authority, the Court of Appeal reversed it. In the said decision Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of Rolls, stated as follows: "I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient or a patient's family, sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it costs, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. It would however, in my view, be shutting one's eyes to the real world, if the court were to proceed on the basis that we do live in such a world. It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet. They cannot pay their nurses as much as they would like; they cannot provide all the treatments they would like; they cannot purchase all the extremely expensive medical equipment they would like; they cannot carry out all the research they would like; they cannot build all the hospitals and specialist units they would like. Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the court can make." XXX XXX XXX If this Court directs the Government to sanction a Higher Secondary School to the petitioner, it may impinge upon the budgetary allotment of funs. Further, if the Government take a policy decision not to allot any funds for sometime to a particular field, it is not a matter, normally, for the courts to interfere. In that case, the appeal would lie to "the ballot and not to the courts". Ours is a Government of people and not of courts. Further, if the Government take a policy decision not to allot any funds for sometime to a particular field, it is not a matter, normally, for the courts to interfere. In that case, the appeal would lie to "the ballot and not to the courts". Ours is a Government of people and not of courts. The courts which are not answerable to the legislature, are not supposed to interfere with executive decisions and functions, unless they are shown to be illegal or ultra vires. By keeping itself within the four corners of the law, the Government can take a wise or a foolish decision. The courts are not authorized to correct the unwise decisions of the Government. The normal mode to get an unwise policy changed in democracies is by building up enlightened public opinion and not be approaching the court." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Concerning framing policies by Courts, while deciding a case between two parties, Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural speech, in his inimitable style, commented: "At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rules, having to that extent practically resigned their own Government into the hands of that eminent Tribunal". The right of the people to govern themselves and not by the Courts, articulated felicitously by Lincoln, is relevant for all times, in democracies. The court, which is not answerable to the legislature, though composed of very learned and erudite judges, cannot enter the field of framing policies for the people, in view of the Constitutional limitations. 13. In view of the above principles, we are of the view that the directions issued by the learned single Judge in paragraph 16 of the judgment under appeal, quoted above, also cannot be sustained. Accordingly, they are vacated. 14. In the result, the writ Appeal is allowed, the judgment under appeal is reversed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.