Judgment Ram Mohan Reddy, J 1. Though this petition is listed for extension of interim order, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Training Officer (JTO) during the year 1991 in Sri Renukamba Rural ITI, a private Craftsman Training Unit (for short, CTU) under a scheme known as “Craftsman Training Scheme” jointly sponsored by the Central & State Government, I.P.P. Administrations and National Council for Vocational Training, for short ‘NCVT’. That scheme laid down standards of training and trade testing, in order to maintain quality of the CTUs in the light of global economy, demand for high quality and proliferation of large number of CTUs vis a vis the demand of user industry and employment opportunities, dependent on rigorous affiliation procedures. 3. The Joint Secretary of the Central Employment & Training, issued a letter – Annex.E, dated 28.7.1998 specifically pointing out to: (i) that unless the Standing Committee’s Inspection Reports, for short “SCIRs”, reflect the fully acceptable position of training infrastructure, students should not be admitted for the courses; (ii) the State Director-in-charge of Craftsman Training, should personally scrutinize the SCIRs before authorizing admission of students; (iii) experience disclosed problems arise when the standing committee inspections were delayed because of administrative or any other reasons and in the meantime admissions of the trainees when made, later on pressure was brought to permit trainees to take up the ‘NCVT’ examination. In the backdrop of such circumstances, the Joint Secretary of Central Employment & Training directed that the effective date of affiliation of a trade be reckoned from the date of inspection by the Standing Committee. 4. The State of Karnataka having regard to the Grant-in-aid Code of Private Industrial Training Institutes in Karnataka, 1997, for short ‘Code’, issued a circular dt. 15.11.1997, Annex.R1 to the statement of objections, that salary grant would be admitted to such of those CTUs which had completed 7 years after the affiliation. 5. The Standing Committee inspected the CTU on 17.8.1991 for the first time and submitted the ‘SCIR’, Annex.A, pointing out to the defect/deficiency in relation to Mechanical (Motor Vehicle) Unit, and directing the CTU to procure a four wheel motor vehicle for imparting training. 6. 5. The Standing Committee inspected the CTU on 17.8.1991 for the first time and submitted the ‘SCIR’, Annex.A, pointing out to the defect/deficiency in relation to Mechanical (Motor Vehicle) Unit, and directing the CTU to procure a four wheel motor vehicle for imparting training. 6. The Standing Committee after inspection, submitted the SCIR dated 19.1.1993, enclosed to Annex.B, disclosing that there were no defects or deficiencies in the matter of Mechanical (MV) Unit in the CTU, which when considered by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Director General of Employment Training, accorded affiliation w.e.f. 19.1.1993 as communicated by letter dt. 31.01.1994, Annex.B. 7. The State though admitted the CTU for salary grant w.e.f. 1.1.1999 under the Code, and released the salary for a period of twelve months upto 31.12.1999, when found to be ineligible, directed recovery of Rs.40,302/- from the petitioner by communication dt. 14.5.2010, Annex.F. Hence this petition. 8. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of the State, interalia contending that in terms of the Code and the circular, Annex.R1, the CTU having been affiliated w.e.f. 19.1.1993, Annex.B, salary grant was permissible 7 years thereafter ie., w.e.f. 19.1.2000 and the grant made for the period from 1.1.1999 to 31.12.1999 being the period when ineligible, hence the recover. In addition it is stated that Annex.R2 contains the particulars of the Training Officers in other CUs, ineligible for grant and in respect of whom too salary was ordered to be recovered. 9. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the communication impugned. Indisputably, the CTU in which the petitioner was appointed, was inspected by the Standing Committee, for the first time on 17/8/1991, when the defect/ deficiency in the Mechanical (Motor Vehicle) Unit was not providing a four wheeler motor vehicle for training, as observed in the SCIR dt. 17.8.1991, Annex.A, while in the second inspection on 19.1.1993, no defect was noticed and the CSIR enclosed to Annex.B, when considered, the Mechanical (MV) Unit of the CTU was accorded affiliation w.e.f. 19.1.1993 by communication dt. 31.10.1994, Annex.B. Applying the terms of the cir5cular, Annex.R1, the admission of salary grant to the Mechanical (MV) Unit of the CTU cannot but be after 1.1.2000 and not earlier since 7 years of affiliation is the period prescribed. 10. Although it is strongly contended that the communication dt. 31.10.1994, Annex.B. Applying the terms of the cir5cular, Annex.R1, the admission of salary grant to the Mechanical (MV) Unit of the CTU cannot but be after 1.1.2000 and not earlier since 7 years of affiliation is the period prescribed. 10. Although it is strongly contended that the communication dt. 28.7.1998, Annex.E, stating that affiliation be reckoned from the first date of inspection of the Standing Committee ie., from 17.8.1991, I am afraid is unacceptable. I say so because the contents of the letter makes it clear that in some States, CTUs without obtaining affiliation admitted students to courses, and later on brought pressure on the department to issue hall tickets to candidates to appear for the ‘NCVT’ examination and in order to prevent such situation in “ensuing years”, certain measures were to be taken ,ad hence it was clarified that the effective date of affiliation of a trade be reckoned from the date of inspection by the Standing Committee. Thus this clarification being prospective for ensuing years, was inapplicable to the trade in the CTU, since by then it had obtained affiliation ie., w.e.f. 19.1.1993. Moreover this communication is not shown to be a clarification over the letter dt. 31.10.1994, Annex.B, granting affiliation to the CTU w.e.f. 19.1.1993. 11. It is trite law that admission to salary grant under the Code is entirely discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any institute, management or an employee. The provisions of the ‘Code’ enjoin upon the CTU to discharge specific obligations which are not exhaustive while such CTUs are under an obligation to function in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government or Director of Employment & raining in Karnataka from time to time. The C ode also reserves the right in favour of the Government t0 refuse, reduce or completely withdraw the aid at any time at its discretion, notwithstanding the rules contained in the Code. Thus there is no unqualified or vested right with a Training institute to claim grant-in-aid. The cause of action to the aggrieved to complaint and seek redress under the Protection of Equality Clause3 under Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the matter of recovery of salary grant made for Mechanical (MV) Unit of the CTU, contrary to the terms of the Code and the executive policy of the State, is beyond purview of judicial review. 12. 12. In the light of the circular, Annex.R1, of the State making its policy known that salary grant is admissible only after 7 years of affiliation, meaning thereby that the Mechanical (MV) Unit of the CTU could seek salary grant only after 1.1.2000 since affiliation is dated 19.1.1993, the CTU was ineligible for admission to salary grant made prior to that date, from 1.1.1999 to 31.12.1999. The recovery of the salary from the petitioner, for the said period cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, so as to qualify interference in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Though Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on several reported opinions of this Court as well as the Apex Court in support of the proposition that once salary is paid to the employee, after a long lapse of time, the management would have no right to recover excess salary made over, in my considered opinion, the opinions are inapplicable to the facts of this case, since salary grant is from the State’s exchequer, accountable to the pubic at large, in terms of its executive policy under the grant-in-aid Code, which is ought to be recovered after having noticed the error committed. In the result, the Petition being without merit is accordingly rejected.