ORDER : B. Chandra Kumar, J. 1. This review has been filed by the petitioner praying this Court to review the order dated 25.04.2013 passed in W.P. No. 9051 of 2012 by this Court. 2. The petitioners 1 to 4 herein are the respondents 1 to 4 and respondents 1 to 9 herein are the petitioners respectively in the writ petition and the tenth respondent herein is the fifth respondent in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 3. In view of the scope of the review petition, there is no need to pass a detailed order, but however, in view of the points raised in the matter and in view of the importance of the issue, I am inclined to pass a detailed order. 4. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, the brief necessary facts are as follows:-- "The fifth respondent school herein was established by the Roman Catholic Mission [RCM], Diocese of Nalgonda as High School in the year 1982-83 without any financial aid with the permission of the Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 1546 Education [F] Department dated 11.12.1984 and it is a Non-Minority Institution. Subsequently, the fifth respondent school appointed qualified teaching and non-teaching staff and the petitioners 1 to 4 were appointed against sanctioned unaided posts and their appointments were approved by the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar, district vide proceedings Rc. No. C2/3445/1993 dated 29.12.1993 and subsequently the petitioners 5 to 10 were appointed and their appointments were approved vide proceedings Rc. No. C1/742/1998 dated 17.06.1999 and 04.08.1999." 5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 238 dated 27.05.1986 to sanction the grant in aid to the new un-aided schools, which were opened or upgraded after 01.04.1977, with prior permission of the competent authority and existing as on 01.09.1985. The fifth respondent school applied to the Director of School Education in the year 1994 on the ground that it was established after 01.04.1977 and was existing as on 01.09.1985 with the permission of the competent authority vide G.O. Rt. No. 1546 Education Department dated 11.12.1984 and thus eligible to receive grant-in-aid. 6. While so, the Government constituted a High Level Committee in terms of G.O. Rt. No. 1546 Education Department dated 11.12.1984 and thus eligible to receive grant-in-aid. 6. While so, the Government constituted a High Level Committee in terms of G.O. Rt. No. 220 Education, dated 24.02.1988, to look into each case for release of Grant-in-Aid and to forward the recommendations for release of Grant-in-Aid and also to withdraw the Grant-in-Aid in respect of certain schools, which are not entitled there for. The High Level Committee came to the conclusion that the fifth respondent school is eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the Government as per Section 3 of A.P. Grant-in-Aid Regulation Act, 1988 (Act 22 of 1988). The fifth respondent school was recommended by the High Level Committee along with other schools in respect of 10 fresh schools, 7 left over schools, and one additional section post for admission into Grant-in-Aid by the Director of School Education of Andhra Pradesh vide Letter Rc. No. 1452/D2-1/94 dated 28.10.1994. The fifth respondent school was shown at Serial No. 3 (Christu Jyothi Vidyanilayam Christianpally Mahabubnagar) in the above recommendations and whereas, Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District, Lal Bahadur English Medium High School and Sri Satyasai Vidyalayam High School, were shown at serial Nos. 4, 14 and 15 respectively. 7. The Government after receipt of the High Level Committee recommendations by letter dated 28.10.1994, has kept those proposals and recommendations in abeyance without assigning any reasons, even though there was concurrence by the Finance and Planning Department. 8. While so, one P. Kasi Reddy, Un-aided Record Assistant, who was working in Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District, approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 17726 of 1998 and this Court has disposed of the writ petition on 23.12.1998, directing the Government to consider the proposals sent by the Director of School Education. The Government, considering the same, rejected the request of all the above un-aided schools to admit into Grant-in-Aid vide Memo No. 26449/PS-II/99 dated 04.02.1999 and the same was communicated by the Director of School Education vide Rc. No. 2177/D2-1/98 dated 30.03.1999 to all such schools including the fifth respondent school. The request of the said schools for admission into Grant-in-Aid was rejected on the ground of financial stringency. No. 2177/D2-1/98 dated 30.03.1999 to all such schools including the fifth respondent school. The request of the said schools for admission into Grant-in-Aid was rejected on the ground of financial stringency. Thereafter, the said P. Kasi Reddy approached this Court and filed another W.P. No. 20241 of 1999, and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 04.04.2000, holding that the financial stringency cannot be a ground to deny the benefit accrued to an individual covered by any policy. 9. Thereafter, the said judgment was challenged by the State in W.A. No. 965 of 2000, and a Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the said writ appeal by order dated 03.04.2006. In fact, during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge was implemented vide G.O.Ms. No. 102 Education Department dated 02.09.2000 and admitted his post into Grant-in-Aid with effect from 01.11.1994 (it is to be noted that Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District is also not admitted into Grant-in-Aid, i.e., it is also an un-aided school. 10. Subsequently, the Government announced policy decision vide G.O.Ms. No. 75 Education Department dated 23.09.2002 and the case of similarly situated total 49 schools and 172 posts including the fifth respondent school came up for consideration. 11. Pending consideration of the proposals before the Government in respect of fifth respondent school, Sri. A. Amanulla and 3 others, who are working in unaided posts in Lal Bahadur High School, Anantapur, filed W.P. No. 22365 of 2002 and this Court, by order dated 08.11.2002, directed the Government to consider of the case of the petitioners therein for admitting their posts into Grant-in-Aid. (The said school was shown at Sl. No. 14 in the list of High Level Committee recommendations dated 28.10.1994). Thereafter, the said non-teaching staff filed C.C. No. 872 of 2003 for non-implementation of the orders of this Court dated 8.11.2002. In compliance to the said contempt case, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 123 Education Department dated 09.10.2003 with prospective effect. 12. Thereafter, the fifth Respondent school made a representation dated 15.11.2003 to the State to consider its case for admission into Grant-in-Aid. Thereupon, the Government, vide Memo No. 19232/PS-II/2003-1 dated 24.12.2003 called for the detailed report from the Director of School Education along with budget details. In response to the said Memo, the Director of School Education sent detailed report to the Government vide Lr. Thereupon, the Government, vide Memo No. 19232/PS-II/2003-1 dated 24.12.2003 called for the detailed report from the Director of School Education along with budget details. In response to the said Memo, the Director of School Education sent detailed report to the Government vide Lr. Rc. No. 1452/B4-2/94 dated 30.12.2003, requesting the Government to admit 9 un-aided posts in respect of the fifth respondent school into Grant-in-Aid, which is at Serial No. 3, in view of the recommendations already made by the High Level Committee. The Government again called for certain information from the Director of School Education with regard to the financial commitment and also category wise posts. Later, the Director of School Education vide Lr. Rc. No. 1452/B4-2/94 dated 05.03.2004 submitted detailed report to the Government. However, it appears that the Government has not considered those proposals on the ground of financial stringency. 13. While so, one D. Musal Reddy filed a writ petition and obtained interim orders in W.P.M.P. No. 29999 of 2003 in W.P. No. 23859 of 2003 dated 13.11.2003. In compliance with those orders, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 144 Education Department dated 01.10.2004 in respect of Sri D. Musal Reddy, Retired P.E.T., working in Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District. It has to be seen that the case of petitioners herein is similar to the case of said Musal Reddy. 14. Thereafter, Sri K. Hanmi Reddy, the 1st petitioner, approached this court and filed W.P. No. 16718 of 2004 seeking direction to the respondents to consider the post in which he was working for admission into grant-in-aid on par with the similarly situated candidates and schools. This Court disposed of the W.P. No. 16718 of 2004 by orders dated 17.9.2004 directing the 1st respondent Government to pass orders on the recommendations made by the High Level Committee on 28.10.1994. 15. Thereafter, the Government imposed ban on recruitment, vide Govt. Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2004 dated 20.10.2004 and the said Memo was implemented by the State with retrospective effect. At that juncture, the Government decided to review the earlier High Level Committee recommendations under the Chairmanship of the Director of School Education, which met on 30.12.2003, 16.2.2004 and subsequently on 6.10.2004. 15. Thereafter, the Government imposed ban on recruitment, vide Govt. Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2004 dated 20.10.2004 and the said Memo was implemented by the State with retrospective effect. At that juncture, the Government decided to review the earlier High Level Committee recommendations under the Chairmanship of the Director of School Education, which met on 30.12.2003, 16.2.2004 and subsequently on 6.10.2004. The case of the fifth respondent school and other similarly situated schools, which were pending before the Government, were reviewed and rejected by the Director of School Education on 28.12.2004 for admission into Grant-in-Aid mainly in view of the ban orders, showing the cause of uneconomic strength and financial stringency. It has to be seen that the proposals to admit 9 posts in the fifth respondent school were pending when Ban orders were imposed. 16. Thereafter, several privately managed schools approached this Court and filed batch of writ Petitions questioning the applicability and validity of Government Memo No. 12080/COSE/A4/2004, dated 20.10.2004 and this Court disposed of the batch of Writ Petitions permitting the Private aided management Schools to fill up the vacancies in all cases wherein the selection process was already initiated prior to ban, notwithstanding the general ban imposed vide Memo Dated. 20-10-2004. Aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Single Judge, the Government preferred W.A. No 1578 of 2005 and batch. While the appeals were pending, the Government began a process of rationalization for filling up all the vacant posts in terms of the G.O.Ms. No. 103 dated 05.08.2005. Taking note of the same, the Division Bench adjourned the hearing of the appeals giving liberty to the writ petitioners to comprehensively amend the pleadings and also to challenge the legality of the Memo dated 20.10.2004. Accordingly the writ petition filed by the C.A.M. High School, Nellore, was amended to challenge the legality of the said Memo. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 29.12.2006, dismissed the appeals filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and allowed the writ petitions filed by the management of the aided private schools and declared that they would be free to appoint selected candidates and seek approval of such appointments from the Competent Authority. The Division Bench quashed the exercise of rationalization undertaken in furtherance of the interim order dated 31.10.2005 and also, directions contained in the letter dated 03.11.2005 issued by the Director of School Education. 17. The Division Bench quashed the exercise of rationalization undertaken in furtherance of the interim order dated 31.10.2005 and also, directions contained in the letter dated 03.11.2005 issued by the Director of School Education. 17. The State government carried the matter to the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9541 of 2007. Pending consideration of the S.L.P., the Apex Court granted interim stay of Contempt proceedings. The Apex Court pronounced Judgment in S.L.P. upholding the imposition of ban on recruitment in aided private schools but with a clarification that it has no retrospective effect. That means, it will not apply to all those cases wherein, the recruitment process had already commenced and where proposals to grant-in-aid were pending. 18. Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High school Mahanandi Kurnool District, filed W.P. No. 7120 of 2006 to declare the action of the respondents for non-admission of the posts into Grant-in-Aid basing on the High Level Committee recommendations dated 28.10.1994 on par with the G.O.Ms. No. 144 dated 01.10.2004 and further prayed that the ban memo dated 20.10.2004 has no application, where the said institution was recommended for admission into Grant-in-Aid, prior to issuance of the said ban Memo. The said writ petition was allowed by orders dated 29.12.2006 along with W.A. No. 1578 of 2005 and batch. Thereafter, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.12.2006, the State filed Special Leave Petition No. 9541 of 2007 in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Seva Das Vidya Mandir and others and obtained stay of all contempt proceedings before the Apex Court. 19. The management of Lal Bahadur English Medium High School, Anantapur, approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 8405 of 2004, questioning the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 123 dated 09.10.2003 for admitting the non-teaching posts into grant-in-aid on prospective basis i.e. on 9.10.2003, basing on the High Level Committee recommendations dated 28.10.1994. This court allowed W.P. No. 8405 of 2004 by orders dated 22.4.2008. The said orders have been implemented by the Government vide Memo No. 10090/PS1/A1/2008 dated 30.7.2009 while admitting the non-teaching posts of the said school into Grant-in-aid with effect from 01.11.1994. The respondents have also referred to W.P. No. 9441 of 2005. In that case, only five sections were admitted into grant-in-aid and the remaining five sections, though started prior to 11.03.1985, were not admitted into grant-in-aid. The respondents have also referred to W.P. No. 9441 of 2005. In that case, only five sections were admitted into grant-in-aid and the remaining five sections, though started prior to 11.03.1985, were not admitted into grant-in-aid. Though the post was not admitted into grant-in-aid, this Court held that a teacher working in a post is the aggrieved person and she can approach this Court and that she has locus standi to knock the doors of this Court. It has to be seen that having regard to several decisions of the Apex Court, this Court came to the said conclusion. 20. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State in SLP No. 9541 of 2007, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of school Education and Literacy, issued a Gazette notification on 16.02.2010 in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of the Section 1 of the 86th Constitution Amendment Act, 2002. The Central Government appointed the 1st Day of April, 2010 as the appointed Day on which the provisions of Act shall come into force. Thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Judgment dated 6.9.2011 dismissed the said Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9541 of 2007 and clarified that the Memo dated 20.10.2004 imposing ban on recruitment of Grant-in-Aid posts has no retrospective effect. 21. One Smt. G. Sakuntala, working as Unaided Grade-I Telugu Pandit in Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi Kurnool District approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 21755 of 2005 questioning the rejection order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 2, Education, dated 11.01.2005, seeking admission her post into Grant-in-Aid. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 8, dated 19.01.2012 for admission of her post into grant in aid with effect from 28.10.1994. 22. The petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 9051 of 2012 seeking direction to the government for admission of posts into Grant-in-Aid basing on High Level Committee recommendations dated 28.10.1994 on par with the similarly situated schools. Then, this Court admitted the writ petition and ordered notice to the respondents. 22. The petitioners approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 9051 of 2012 seeking direction to the government for admission of posts into Grant-in-Aid basing on High Level Committee recommendations dated 28.10.1994 on par with the similarly situated schools. Then, this Court admitted the writ petition and ordered notice to the respondents. After filing the counter affidavits by the State Government as well as the District Educational Officer, this Court allowed the writ petition on 25.04.2013 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners on par with the similarly situated persons conferring similar benefits as was done in G.O.Ms. No. 144, School Education Department, dated 01.10.2004. The petitioners herein, thereafter, filed C.C. No. 1949 of 2013 for non-implementation of the orders dated 25.04.2013 in W.P. No. 9051 of 2012. This Court ordered notice before admission on 13.11.2013 and the Government took time for reporting compliance. 23. During the pendency of the Contempt case, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2014 SC 2114. The plight of the private teachers was considered by a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case between State of U.P. Vs. Pavan Kumar Divide (2014) 9 SCC 692, wherein, the question as to whether the teachers of privately managed primary schools and primary sections of privately managed high schools are eligible to receive their salaries from the State and it was held that it is the constitutional obligation on the part of the State to provide primary education as a fundamental right and, therefore, the teachers of privately managed schools are entitled for grant-in-aid. Thereafter, the Central Government notified the appointed day as 2nd June, 2014 for implementation of the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014. The Government, in spite of above clear verdict and in spite of coming into force of the above Act, having taken several adjournments in Contempt Case, finally rejected the case of the petitioners for admission of the posts held by them into Grant-in-Aid vide Memo No. 808/SE/Genl/A1/2012, dated 07.10.2014. The Government, in spite of above clear verdict and in spite of coming into force of the above Act, having taken several adjournments in Contempt Case, finally rejected the case of the petitioners for admission of the posts held by them into Grant-in-Aid vide Memo No. 808/SE/Genl/A1/2012, dated 07.10.2014. It has to be seen that after rejecting the case of the petitioners, the Government filed this review petition seeking to review the order dated 25.04.2013 in W.P. No. 9051 of 2012, on three grounds viz., (1) The writ petitioners, who are the employees of the fifth respondent school, which is an un-aided school, as such they have no right to seek absorption into Grant-in-Aid posts; (ii) The writ petitioners have no locus standi to file writ petition seeking direction to the respondents for admission of their posts into Grant-in-Aid and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable; and (iii) The rejection order issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 2, Education Department, dated 11.01.2005 has become final. 24. Learned Government Pleader for School Education (Telangana), submits that the petitioners have been working in the fifth respondent school and that they have no locus standi to file the writ petition. It is also her submission that the fifth respondent school has not been admitted into grant-in-aid and, therefore, the petitioners have no right to seek absorption into grant-in-aid posts. It is also her submission that the Government has earlier considered the case of the fifth respondent school and rejected its case vide G.O.Ms. No. 2, dated 11.01.2005 and the same has become final. Her main submission is that the fifth respondent school ought to have challenged the said orders of the Government and in the absence of the same, the petitioners cannot directly approach this Court. It is also her submission that the Government has absolute discretion whether to grant or reject grant-in-aid having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and a private teacher has no right to challenge the action of the Government. It is also her submission that the facts basing on which G.O.Ms. No. 144 dated 01.10.2004 has been issued are quite different and the said G.O. had been issued much earlier to the date of issuing G.O.Ms. No. 2 dated 11.01.2005 referred above. 25. It is also her submission that the facts basing on which G.O.Ms. No. 144 dated 01.10.2004 has been issued are quite different and the said G.O. had been issued much earlier to the date of issuing G.O.Ms. No. 2 dated 11.01.2005 referred above. 25. Per contra, Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the aggrieved persons and in fact, they are the affected persons by the inaction of the Government and as aggrieved persons, they have right to approach this Court. It is also his submission that the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this Court. His next submission is that the respondents have raised the issue of locus standi in the earlier writ petition and the same has been negatived by this Court in the case between Sridevi Vs. Government of A.P.2010 (6) ALD 185 and even when the respondents have raised the same issue before the Apex Court, it was not considered by the Apex Court and, therefore, the respondents cannot raise the same issue again and again. It is also his submission that the respondents have been raising new points which they have not raised at the time of arguing the writ petition. Learned counsel had referred to several similar cases and submitted that the Government have issued G.O.s complying the orders of this Court in those cases, but discrimination is shown in respect of the petitioners. He has also referred to the changes that have been brought in, in the field of education and the laws made by the Central Government. He has also referred to Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right to Education Act, 2009. It is also his submission that education is a subject which is in the concurrent list and when it is in the concurrent list, any G.O., Memo or even any law made by the State Government, if it is inconsistent with the law made by the Central Government, the same would be void to the extent of inconsistency. It is also his submission that in view of the latest laws made by the Central Government, the earlier memo issued by the Government imposing ban require reconsideration. 26. I have considered the rival contentions. It is also his submission that in view of the latest laws made by the Central Government, the earlier memo issued by the Government imposing ban require reconsideration. 26. I have considered the rival contentions. The points that arise for consideration in this review petition are:-- "(1) Whether the petitioners have to be treated as aggrieved persons; (2) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to approach this Court, i.e., whether the writ petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable; (3) Whether denial of relief to the petitioners would amount to discrimination; (4) Whether this review petition is maintainable; (5) Whether the ban memo require reconsideration; (6) Whether the ban memo is inconsistent with the central legislation; and (7) Whether it is obligatory on the part of the State to consider the case of the petitioners." Point No. 1:-- 27. The Full Bench of this Court examined the word 'aggrieved person' and the maintainability in the case between M. Vanaja Vs. Balasesanna 2007 (4) ALD 388 . It has also been observed that where a short order has been passed without discussing the subject with reference to the provisions, the same cannot be treated as laying down a binding preposition of law. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. (Refer: State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta ( AIR 1952 SC 12 ); Saghir Ahmad & Another Vs. State of U.P. ( AIR 1954 SC 728 ); Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.,( AIR 1962 SC 1044 ); Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 1996 SC 2736 ); and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association Vs. S.C. Sekar & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 784 ). 28. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules, thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. (Refer: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji Vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York ( AIR 1974 SC 1719 ); and The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,( AIR 1977 SC 1361 ). In Anand Sharadchandra Oka Vs. University of Mumbai AIR 2008 SC 1289 ). 29. The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and, to an extent, an elusive concept. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged (Ref: J.M. Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar ( AIR 1976 SC 578 ). In Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar & others (1975) 2 SCC 702 , the Apex Court held that the words "person aggrieved" are found in several statutes and the meaning will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. It has been noticed in Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal & Others (supra) that the orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea change and the constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or the claims of litigants cannot be dislodged merely on hyper technical grounds (Refer: S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India { 1981 (Supp) SCC 87}. 30. In Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Shri Vardichan and others (1980) 4 SCC 162 and in M.C. Mehta (II) Vs. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 471 , the context of the Apex Court has changed from the earlier strict interpretation regarding locus standi as adopted in the case between Nagar Rice & Flour Mills and ors. Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. and ors (1970)1 SCC 575 and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & ors 1976(1) SCC 671 and a much wider canvass has been adopted in later years regarding a persons entitlement to move the High Court involving writ jurisdiction. Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. and ors (1970)1 SCC 575 and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & ors 1976(1) SCC 671 and a much wider canvass has been adopted in later years regarding a persons entitlement to move the High Court involving writ jurisdiction. In the case between Jasbhai Motibhai Desai's case (supra), the Apex Court pointed out three categories of persons vis-a-vis the locus standi (1) a person aggrieved; (2) a stranger; 3) a busybody or a meddle some interloper. Learned Judges in that decision pointed out that any one belonging to the third category is easily distinguishable and such person interferes in things which do not concern him as he masquerades to be a crusader of justice. The Judgment has cautioned that the High Court should do well to reject the petitions of such busy body at the threshold itself. Then their Lordships observed the following: The distinction between the first and second categories of applicants, though real, is not always well demarcated. The first category has as it were, two concentric zones, a solid central zone of certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the category of persons aggrieved. In the grey outer circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outer zone may not be persons aggrieved. 31. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court uphold the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 and its consequential enactment of the central Government, which is called as The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust's case (supra). The issue whether teachers working in a private school are entitled to receive salaries from the State came up for consideration the case between State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others 2014 (9) SCC 692, and it was answered in affirmative. 32. In reality, it is the petitioners whose service conditions would be affected. They would feel secure and guarantee of regular income if he posts in which they are working are admitted into grant-in-aid. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others 2014 (9) SCC 692, and it was answered in affirmative. 32. In reality, it is the petitioners whose service conditions would be affected. They would feel secure and guarantee of regular income if he posts in which they are working are admitted into grant-in-aid. It has to be seen that some of the petitioners have been working since last 21 years. 33. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that any person whose rights have been infringed and who would be the affected person, has to be treated as a aggrieved person. Accordingly, the petitioners have to be treated as aggrieved persons. Point No. 2:-- 34. No doubt, the fifth respondent school has not filed the writ petition. It is also a fact that the fifth respondent school has to furnish the required information. Even if the fifth respondent school did not furnish the information required, the respondents ought to have prevailed upon the fifth respondent school to furnish information. It is the obligation of the state to provide basic facilities for imparting education to the children. Whether the students are studying in Government school or in a private school, ultimately, the State has to look after the education of the children. In case of Government schools, the Government is directly responsible to pay the salaries to the teachers and to provide basic facilities. In case of private schools, the Government will supervise and issue necessary orders and directions and make the management of private schools to comply with those directions. If the private management fail to comply with those directions, the Government will take necessary action and if necessary, even the recognition of the school can be cancelled. 35. As far as the fifth respondent School is concerned, while granting permission to the School vide G.O. Rt. No. 1546 dated 11.12.1994, the Government of A.P., categorically ordered that the management should not collect admission fees from the students. The management of the school was permitted to collect only special fees as per the Education rules. The very scheme of providing grant-in-aid is to safeguard the interests of the teachers and students working in such institutions. 36. Grant or Grant-in-aid means any sum of money paid as aid out of the state to any educational institution as per Clause 22 of Section 2 of A.P. Education Act, 1982. The very scheme of providing grant-in-aid is to safeguard the interests of the teachers and students working in such institutions. 36. Grant or Grant-in-aid means any sum of money paid as aid out of the state to any educational institution as per Clause 22 of Section 2 of A.P. Education Act, 1982. Chapter VIII of the said Act deals with grant-in-aid. A reading of Section 42, 43 and 45 of the said Act makes it clear that grant-in-aid, if sanctioned to an educational institution, thus, certain posts in that school will be admitted into grant-in-aid. It is not the individual teachers who would be given grant-in-aid, but it is the post that will be admitted into grant-in-aid. Therefore, it appears that irrespective of the fact whether the petitioners were working as on the date when initial proposals were sent to the Government for admitting the posts into grant-in-aid, the petitioners would have legitimate expectation of admitting the posts into grant-in-aid as on the date of their appointment since the proposals for admitting the posts into grant-in-aid were already submitted and pending with the Government. No doubt, the Government have subsequently rejected the recommendations of the High Level Committee by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 2 dated 11.01.2005 in view of the policy decision taken by the Government vide Memo No. 12080/COSE/A4/2004 dated 20.10.2004 imposing ban on the filling up of grant-in-aid posts. 37. The primary contention raised on behalf of the state is that the petitioners are working in fifth respondent school, as such the writ petition is not maintainable against the State and they have no locus standi to file the writ petition to seek Writ of Mandamus for release of salaries (Grant-in-Aid) from the State. Ultimately, it is the petitioners who would be the affected persons and consequently, the students, because, a teacher who has no security of job or salary would be always in tension and cannot perform his duties perfectly. Ultimately, the service conditions of the petitioners will be affected. In fact, neither the management nor the official respondents in person would be the affected persons. Moreover, it appears that there is no distinction in between aided or unaided posts for appointment, recognition, etc., in the rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1 Education, dated 01.01.1994. 38. The learned Government Pleader for School Education (Telangana) relied on the decision in the case between Smt. Lilly Felix Vs. Moreover, it appears that there is no distinction in between aided or unaided posts for appointment, recognition, etc., in the rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1 Education, dated 01.01.1994. 38. The learned Government Pleader for School Education (Telangana) relied on the decision in the case between Smt. Lilly Felix Vs. The District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram Decided on 13.12.2005 in W.P. No. 26554 of 2005 by High Court of A.P. She has also relied on the judgment in the case between K. Balaswamy Reddy Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Decided on 19.12.2005 in W.A. No. 2407 of 2005 by High Court of A.P. In fact, these two matters were dismissed at admission stage without any elaborate discussion. Therefore, these decisions would not help the respondents. In fact, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition filed by the teachers of private aided schools was raised before the Apex Court. 39. The pleadings raised by the State in SLP No. 9541 of 2007 is as follows: "Whether the writ petitions filed by individuals of the Private aided Educational institutions are maintainable against the Government?" 40. Though the said issue was specifically raised, but it was not taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the said SLP. 41. The similar identical question came up for consideration before this Court in the case between M. Sreedevi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2010 (6) ALD 185, wherein it was held as follows:-- "Though not urged in the pleadings, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition arose during the course of the hearing. The issue being whether the petitioner, an individual Teacher, could maintain the writ petition in connection with the dispute relating to sanction of grant in-aid. Reference in this regard was made to the case law on the point." 42. Subsequently, this Court considered similar identical cases in the case between Md. Soujanya and another Vs. SVV MPC Mahila Vidyalayapeeth Visakhapatnam 2006 (2) ALD 251 . In the said order, similar directions were given to the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners therein. The said order has been affirmed in W.A. No. 930 of 2006 by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.09.2006. In fact, this issue was raised in SLP No. 9541 of 2007 before the Apex Court. 43. In the said order, similar directions were given to the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners therein. The said order has been affirmed in W.A. No. 930 of 2006 by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.09.2006. In fact, this issue was raised in SLP No. 9541 of 2007 before the Apex Court. 43. Aggrieved by the judgment in Sridevi's case (supra), the State Government filed W.A. No. 851 of 2010. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal by order dated 15.2.2012 by affirming the orders of the Learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the State Government filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No. 19308 of 2012. The Apex Court, by orders dated 27.09.2013, dismissed the SLP. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 16, Higher Education (I.E.II) Department, dated 12.03.2013 and admitted the post in which Smt. M. Sridevi, Junior Lecturer (Maths) (Un-aided) working in Dr B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Junior College, Tenali, Guntur District. The operative portion of the order of the Apex Court reads as follows: "We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court that the reasons put forward by the petitioners for refusing to consider the case of the Respondent No. 1 for grant or approval were legally unsustainable. We are also do not find any error in the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the petitioners to reconsider the case of the Respondent No. 1 for regularization of her service and for absorption against aided posts of Junior Lecturer (Maths) in the service of Respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 9.12.1994 and to give her all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge gave these directions because in the case of Mohd. Ayazuddin, the department had accorded approval for his absorption despite the fact that he was appointed in the same manner in which respondent No. 1 had been appointed. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed." 44. The scope of the Writ Jurisdiction, is not a routine jurisdiction but an extraordinary jurisdiction meant for extraordinary purpose. It is to grant an efficacious and speedy remedy against any violation of fundamental rights. The technical rules of procedure attached to the Civil Courts are not strictly applicable to the Writs and therefore result in an expeditious relief. The scope of the Writ Jurisdiction, is not a routine jurisdiction but an extraordinary jurisdiction meant for extraordinary purpose. It is to grant an efficacious and speedy remedy against any violation of fundamental rights. The technical rules of procedure attached to the Civil Courts are not strictly applicable to the Writs and therefore result in an expeditious relief. The Writ Jurisdiction mainly provides for the protection of fundamental rights, which are to be enforced against the State. 45. Article 226 of the Constitution of India has two facets. It strikes at infringement of the constitutional rights, fundamental rights, statutory rights and common law rights. If a State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India is guilty of any such violations, it is the duty of the High Court to issue writs to correct the executive excesses. A writ would also be issued if 'any person' entrusted with discharge of public functions acts illegally, unfairly and arbitrarily. These principles are well settled. The quintessential tests to resolve dilemma whether a body is a State or not, came to be first indicated by the Apex Court in the case between Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 . In Som Prakash Rekhi Vs. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 212 and Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi AIR 1981 SC 487 , it was held that the question of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 does not always depend on resolving the question whether the respondent is a State or not. If the respondent is not a State, even then a writ would lie provided it is shown that they perform public functions. 46. It appears that when an authority or a private individual such as a private school is governed by certain rules and when they are bound to follow the procedure prescribed by the Court, it appears that not only the concerned authorities, but also the private individuals or private schools who have to follow the rules are amenable to the writ jurisdiction if they violate the rules or the prescribed procedure violating the fundamental rights of the concerned teachers working in those schools. {Refer: Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust Vs. V.R. Rudani ( (1989) 2 SCC 691 ), G. Bassi Reddy Vs. {Refer: Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust Vs. V.R. Rudani ( (1989) 2 SCC 691 ), G. Bassi Reddy Vs. International Crops Research Institute (2003) 4 SCC 225 ; Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas ( (2003) 10 SCC 733 ; and Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. Lotus Hotels Private Limited 1983 (3) SCC 379 }. Thus, it has been well recognized by the catena of judgments that aggrieved teacher would be entitled to relief under Article 226. The management of private schools are bound to furnish required information and facilitate the Government to sanction grant-in-aid. 47. Thus, a private body on which public duty has been imposed by a Statute, can thus be commanded to perform statutory duty and any violation in performance of statutory duty can be complained in writ proceeding; thus where allegation of statutory violation is made, Writ Petition is clearly maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Another recent judgment, which has been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners is Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 12 SCC 331, which fully supports the submission of the petitioners that the Writ Petition is maintainable. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case between Aley Ahmad Abdi Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others 1976 AWC 731 (All) has also held that Writ Petition against a private management committee is fully maintainable, if violation of statutory provisions is alleged. In the case between Rameshswarup Gupta Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited AIR 1976 MP 125 , one of the questions that came up before a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was whether a writ in the nature of Mandamus can be issued to a Cooperative Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. After holding that such a cooperative society is not a statutory body, the Full Bench observed that whenever, it is pointed out that any statutory provisions requiring the Society to act in a particular manner creates a right or interest in favour of the person concerned, it will be permissible for such person to approach the High Court for seeking the writ of mandamus to direct the statute, and not commit breach of the same. 48. 48. The Apex Court, in the case between Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association vs. State of Kerala and others 2010 (6) SCC 373 , held as follows:-- "..It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself...." "In the case of The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another Vs. K.S. Jagannathan and another - ( AIR 1987 SC 537 ), a three-Judge Bench of this Court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I paragraph 89 to illustrate the range of this remedy and quoted with approval the following passage from Halsbury about the efficacy of Mandamus: "..is to remedy defects of justice and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right, and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy yet that mode of redress is less convenient beneficial and effectual." (See para 19, page 546 of the report)" 49. Thus, it is clear that when the respondents, whether state or private, are under legal obligation to perform certain duties and non-performance of the same affects the Right to life or Right to Education, i.e., any of the fundamental rights, a writ is maintainable. A teacher working in an aided post is almost similar to a teacher working in an un-aided post since the same rules of recruitment, leave etc., apply. The private management is bound to follow the law made by the State. By not admitting a post into grant-in-aid, the most affected persons would be the teachers working in that post. The case of the fifth respondent and the posts held by the petitioners were recommended by the High Level Committee which was constituted as per G.O. Rt. The private management is bound to follow the law made by the State. By not admitting a post into grant-in-aid, the most affected persons would be the teachers working in that post. The case of the fifth respondent and the posts held by the petitioners were recommended by the High Level Committee which was constituted as per G.O. Rt. No. 220 dated 24.02.1988 vide High Level Committee report dated 28.10.1994 and 30.12.2003 and 05.03.2004 which clearly reveal that the posts in which the petitioners have been working were recommended by the High Level Committee. Admittedly, the case of the similarly situated persons were considered viz., P. Kasi Reddy, D. Musal Reddy, G. Sakuntala, A. Anumula, whereas the case of the respondents herein were objected on the question of maintainability. The points now raised were not raised in earlier round of litigation. 50. One of the contentions of the respondents for rejecting the case of the fifth respondent school for admitting into grant-in-aid is that certain information was not furnished by the School. If that is the case, nothing prevented the officials to initiate necessary action to secure the information. The petitioners cannot be found fault for not sending the required information by the School. Moreover, the officials can secure the information from the school and from the records. Anyhow, that cannot be a ground to reject the request of the petitioners for admitting the posts into grant-in-aid. The other grounds, viz., imposition of ban or uneconomic strength, as seen from the earlier decisions of this Court, were not acceptable to this Court. Another contention raised is with regard to Memo No. 8008/SE-Genl/A1/2012 dated 07.10.2014. I have gone through the said Memo. The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioners assigning the same reasons that were shown in their counter, i.e., the same grounds that were existing prior to passing of the order in the writ petition. The ban order is shown as the main reason for rejecting the case for admitting the posts into grant-in-aid. The respondents cannot assign the same reasons that were earlier shown by them prior to the date of passing order in the writ petition. The ban order is shown as the main reason for rejecting the case for admitting the posts into grant-in-aid. The respondents cannot assign the same reasons that were earlier shown by them prior to the date of passing order in the writ petition. Merely because the respondents have passed some illegal order or rejected the case of the petitioners by one stroke of pen without considering the order of this Court or the latest legal position, can it be said that such an order is sustainable in the eye of law? If such kind of practice or attitude by the officials is allowed, every time whenever an order has been passed by this Court, the respondents therein may pass some illegal order and force the petitioners therein to file fresh writ petition. It will result in great injustice if the case of the petitioners is brushed aside merely because the respondents have passed some baseless and unreasonable order. The respondents, being Government officials, can have the luxury of litigation at the cost of the State, but the petitioners may not afford further litigation. The respondents would have put their head and heart together in dealing with this matter. 51. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioners have no locus standi to file a writ petition seeking grant in aid. They are entitled to the same relief which has been granted to the other similarly situated persons. The case of the fifth respondent school and the petitioners was recommended along with the similarly situated persons by the High Level Committee. Thus, the petitioners have locus standi to file a writ petition seeking grant in aid and it is clear that the writ petition filed by them is maintainable. Point No. 3:-- 52. Now it has to be seen whether the action of the respondents would amount to discrimination. 53. It is not the case of the respondents that the fifth respondent school or petitioners have not fulfilled the eligibility. It is not in dispute that the fifth respondent school and the posts held by petitioners have been already recommended by the High Level Committee through its recommendations dated 28.10.1994, 30.12.2003 and 05.03.2004. 53. It is not the case of the respondents that the fifth respondent school or petitioners have not fulfilled the eligibility. It is not in dispute that the fifth respondent school and the posts held by petitioners have been already recommended by the High Level Committee through its recommendations dated 28.10.1994, 30.12.2003 and 05.03.2004. It is not in dispute that the financial stringency or the ban order shown by the Government have been rejected by this Court and the Apex Court, as not valid grounds in many similar situations. 54. The State Government admitted that various schools and also individual Teachers who approached this Court and filed various writ petitions and their unaided posts have been admitted into Grant in aid and the Government cannot show discrimination towards the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the case of Sri P. Kasi Reddy Unaided Record Assistant working in Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi Kurnool District, has been considered vide G.O.Ms. No. 102, Education, dated 02.09.2000 with effect from 01.11.1994. The said G.O. was issued in compliance of the orders in W.P. No. 20241 of 1999 dated 04.04.2000 and which has been affirmed in W.A. No. 965 of 2000 dated 03.04.2006. 55. It is also not in dispute that when Sri. A. Amanulla and 3 others, who are unaided Non-Teaching Staff of Lal Bahadur, High School, Anantapur (The said school was shown at Sl. No. 14 in the list of High Level Committee recommendations dated 28.10.1994) approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 22365 of 2002, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 123 Education Department dated 09.10.2003 with Prospective effect and later revised orders have been issued by the state government in Government Memo. No. 10090/PS-1/A1/2008 dated 30.07.2009. 56. The Government also issued G.O.Ms. No. 144 Education Department dt: 01.10.2004 in respect of Sri D. Musal Reddy, Retd. Unaided P.E.T. worked in Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District. The order has been issued in compliance with the orders of this Court in WP MP No. 29999 of 2003 in WP No. 23859 of 2003 dt: 13.11.2003, with effect from 28.10.1994. 57. The petitioner has also referred to W.P. No. 8405 of 2004, wherein, Lalbahadur English Medium High School, Anantapuram, was the petitioner. This Court has allowed the said writ petition. 58. 57. The petitioner has also referred to W.P. No. 8405 of 2004, wherein, Lalbahadur English Medium High School, Anantapuram, was the petitioner. This Court has allowed the said writ petition. 58. The main submission of Sri Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in fact, the case of the petitioners is almost same and similar to the above referred cases. It is also his submission that there is no distinction between the school which has been admitted into grant-in-aid and the school which is not admitted into grant-in-aid and that the Rules, Procedures regarding appointment and their service conditions are almost one and the same. 59. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the respondents cannot show discrimination towards petitioners and to the School in the matter of admitting the posts in the school into grant-in-aid. It has to be seen that the case of G. Sakuntala is almost similar to the case of the petitioners. It has to be seen that even the case of Lal Bahadur English Medium School in W.P. No. 8405 of 2004 is also almost similar to the case of the petitioners. It has to be seen that in Sridevi's referred above, it is the teachers who directly approached this court and ultimately the Government considered their case and issued orders. When similar cases have been considered by the Government, it is clear that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners is discriminative and the order of this Court in directing to consider the case of the petitioners is to prevent discrimination and thereby injustice to the petitioners. Point No. 4:-- 60. It has to be seen that the respondent officials in the main writ petition would get several opportunities to oppose the main writ petition at the time of admitting the main writ petition, at the time of filing counter and also while arguing the matter. It is most unfortunate that the points which they did not choose to raise at the time of arguing the main writ petition are being raised in a review petition or in a contempt case. 61. It is most unfortunate that the points which they did not choose to raise at the time of arguing the main writ petition are being raised in a review petition or in a contempt case. 61. It is appropriate to quote the prayer in the main writ petition, which is as follows:-- "this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the un-aided posts of the petitioners into Grant-in-Aid basing on the recommendations of the High Level Committee, which was constituted by the Government in terms of G.O. Rt. No. 220 Education Department dated 24.2.1988 and its report vide 2nd respondent's letter Rc. No. 1452/D2-1/1994 dated 28.10.1994 in respect of 5th respondent school as shown in Annexure at Sl. No. 3, on par with the similarly situated schools as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice apart from violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC 613 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to admit the petitioners' posts into Grant-in-Aid in 5th respondent school with all consequential benefits on par with the similarly situated candidates working in various schools whose posts were admitted into Grant-in-Aid vide G.O.Ms. No. 144 Education (PS-1) 'Department dated 1.10.2004 and Govt. Memo No. 10090/PS1/A1/2008 dated 30.7.2009." 62. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has prayed to issue the writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the un-aided posts of the petitioners into Grant-in-Aid basing on the recommendations of the High Level Committee. Therefore, from the prayer in the writ petition itself it is clear that the posts were not admitted into grant-in-aid. This Court, while disposing of W.P. No. 9051 of 2012, had categorically mentioned in the order that the case of the Government is that the High Level Committee has rejected the proposals stating that no approval from the competent authority was taken for filling up the unaided post and further observed that there is uneconomic strength and the Government have put a ban on creation of new grant-in-aid posts. It is not in dispute that appointments of the petitioners have been approved by the District Educational Officer as discussed in the above paras and, therefore, the question of obtaining prior approval would not stand to scrutiny at this stage. 63. Therefore, it cannot be said that the points now raised in this review petition were not considered by this Court while disposing of the writ petition and there is an error apparent on the face of record. From the prayer of the writ petition and from the observations made by this Court while disposing of the writ petition, it is clear that there is no force in the contentions of the learned Government Pleader for School Education (Telangana) that there is an error on the face of the record. Moreover, having regard to the scope of review petition, it cannot be said that the respondents have discovered any new and important matter or evidence which they could not put forth before this Court even after exercise of due diligence at the time of disposal of the main writ petition. Moreover, it cannot be said that the points now raised in this review petition were not within the knowledge of the respondents on earlier occasion and on account of some mistake, error apparent on the face of record occurred. It has to be seen that the Writ Petition has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 25.04.2013 and this review petition has been filed by the Government on 31.10.2014, i.e., after about one and half years. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the cases and the points raised, I am of the view that this review petition should be dismissed on merits. Points 5, 6 & 7:-- 64. Now let us see the changes that have been brought in educational laws by the State Government and the Central Government and the policies and schemes of the Central Government. Any law/G.O./Memo have to be looked into keeping in view the latest laws and objectives to be achieved by the latest laws. 65. The A.P. Education Act, 1982 (Act No. 1 of 1982), is the first Comprehensive Act in state of Andhra Pradesh concerning education and the said Act and Act of 1988 have been replaced by Act No. 22 of 1995. The Apex court reported in a case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. 65. The A.P. Education Act, 1982 (Act No. 1 of 1982), is the first Comprehensive Act in state of Andhra Pradesh concerning education and the said Act and Act of 1988 have been replaced by Act No. 22 of 1995. The Apex court reported in a case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. G.V.K. Girls High School 2000 (6) ALD 84 (SC) held that what is removed by the Act 22 of 1995 is the right created by the Government orders and not the rights created by Act 1 of 1982 and Act 22 of 1988. If any Government Order had conferred any right to the institutions enumerated in the Annexure to GO 326 dated 17.10.1989 read with GO 178 dated 23.7.1990, it was only those rights that were intended to be removed retrospectively by Section 2 from 17.10.1989. In other words the Legislature while enacting Section 2 of Act 34 of 1995 did not to remove the rights conferred by the Principal Act 1 of 1982 and Act 22 of 1988 read with the Committee's declaratory findings. It was further held that the Act 34 of 1995 being retrospective only from 17.10.1989, does not go beyond that date into the back years. Thus the rights created by Act 1 of 1982 and Act 22 of 1988 read with the Committee's recommendations have not been nullified by Act 34 of 1995. It has to be seen that in this case, 9 posts in the School were recommended on 28.10.1994 by the High Level Committee and again on 30.12.2003, irrespective of amending and enacting new Act. 66. It has to be seen that keeping in view of the judicial pronouncements rendered by the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others Vs. State of A.P. and others (1993) 1 SCC 645 and T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 , the Parliament made amendment to the Constitution though the 86th Constitution Amendment Act. 2002 declaring Right to Education as fundamental right of the children between the age group of 6 to 14 years and the act of parliament has received assent of the President of India on 12th December 2002 and the same has been published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II, Section-I - Serial No. 65 dt: 13.12.2002. 67. 2002 declaring Right to Education as fundamental right of the children between the age group of 6 to 14 years and the act of parliament has received assent of the President of India on 12th December 2002 and the same has been published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part-II, Section-I - Serial No. 65 dt: 13.12.2002. 67. In pursuance to the above said Act, a new Article 21-A was added in Part-III of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows; "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". 68. Further, this article has been strengthened by adding a clause (k) to Article 51-A, which makes it a fundamental duty of a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his/her child or ward between the age of 6 and 14 years. On the basis of the Constitutional mandate provided under three clauses. i) adding Article 21-A in Part-III [Fundamental Rights] ii) Modifying Article 45; (D.P.S.P.) iii) Adding a new clause (k) under Article 51(a). It becomes obligatory on the part of the state Government to provide basic facilities to the students. Thereafter, the Seven Judge Bench of the Apex Court has highlighted the importance of education in the case between P.A. Inamdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537 . 69. The Central Government enacted the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in admission) Act, 2006, Act 5 of 2007, which has been published in the Gazette of India vide Extraordinary Part-II - Section I Serial No. 5 dated January 4th, 2007, called as Act 5 of 2007. This act has provided for the reservation in admission of the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and other Backward class citizens, central educational institutions established, maintained or aided by the Central Government, and for maters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 70. In view of the Article 21-A of the Constitution, the Central Government enacted an important Act "The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009" [Central Act No. 35 of 2009] and the same was published in the Gazette No. 359 dated 19.2.2010. 70. In view of the Article 21-A of the Constitution, the Central Government enacted an important Act "The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009" [Central Act No. 35 of 2009] and the same was published in the Gazette No. 359 dated 19.2.2010. The said Act contains Seven Chapters, 38 Sections, wherein Section 2 deals with the appropriate Government, Section 8 deals with the duties of the appropriate government, Section 19 deals with the norms and standards of schools, Section 24 deals with the Teacher - Pupil ratio and Section 26deals with the filling up of the vacancies of Teachers and specifies that the vacancies shall not exceed 10% of the total sanctioned strength. The children below fourteen years are conferred right of free education as per Section 7(5) of the Act, the State is under corresponding obligation to provide funds for implementation of relevant provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Further, Section25(1) which reads that "Within six months from the date of commencement of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR), as specified in the Schedule, is maintained in each school." 71. The Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of School Education and Literacy) issued notification on 16th February, 2010, in exercise of powers conferred by the sub-section 2 of Section 1 of the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002, the Central Government appointed the 1st Day of April, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of the Act came into force. 72. The Government of Andhra Pradesh notified R.T.E. Rules called "The Andhra Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010" vide G.O.Ms. No. 20, School Education (PE.Prog.1) dated 03.03.2011. These rules come into force with effect from 01.04.2010. Rule 22 of the said rules deals with the duties of Teachers, Rule 24 deals with maintaining of Teacher-Pupil ratio in each school. Rule 25 deals with academic authority laying down the curriculum and evaluation procedure. Rule 29 deals with the repeal and savings. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 42 School Education dated 30.07.2010, prohibiting of Screening Test and collection of Capitation Fee and prescribed fee structure for private recognized Schools. Rule 25 deals with academic authority laying down the curriculum and evaluation procedure. Rule 29 deals with the repeal and savings. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 42 School Education dated 30.07.2010, prohibiting of Screening Test and collection of Capitation Fee and prescribed fee structure for private recognized Schools. Thereafter, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23(1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, 'the Act of 2009'), and in pursuance of Notification No. S.O. 750(E) : dated 31.3.2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had issued a notification laying down minimum qualifications for being eligible for Appointment as teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009 with effect from the date of the notification. The Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, had published Guidelines (for short, MHRD Guidelines) dated 8.11.2010 under Section 35(1) of the Act of 2009 for implementation of the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009. The State of Andhra Pradesh notified in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Sec. 29 of the Act, 2009, the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Education, Research and Training (SCERT) as prescribed by the academic authority for the purpose of prescribing the syllabus and curriculum of the classes for the primary education. 73. The constitutional validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came up for consideration before the Apex Court and the Apex Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act in the case between Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India & Another (2012) 6 SCC 102 by observing that all the states that all private un-aided schools shall admit 25% children belonging to weaker sections an disadvantage groups in Class-I ever year as per Sec. 12(1)(C) of RTE Act 2009 till completion of elementary education. 74. There after the Apex Court, by its judgment dated 03.10.2012 in WP (Civil) No. 631 of 2004 in the case of Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation Vs. Delhi Administration and others 2012 (10) SCC 197 , have given certain directions for implementation of the RTE Act. 2009 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. 74. There after the Apex Court, by its judgment dated 03.10.2012 in WP (Civil) No. 631 of 2004 in the case of Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation Vs. Delhi Administration and others 2012 (10) SCC 197 , have given certain directions for implementation of the RTE Act. 2009 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Thereafter the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, by Judgment dated 6.5.2014 in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust's case (supra), the Apex Court considered the two questions (1) Whether by inserting clause (5) in Article 15 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Ninety third Amendment) Act, 2005, Parliament has altered the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. ii) Whether by inserting Article 21A of the Constitution by the Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, Parliament has altered the basic structure or framework of the Constitution". 75. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in another case between State of Karnataka and another Vs. Associated Management of (Government Recognized un-aided English Medium) Primary and Secondary schools and others in Civil Appeal No. 5166 - 5190 of 2013 by Judgment dated 6.5.2013 considered various questions referred to the Constitution Bench. Question No. iv: Whether the Government recognized schools are inclusive of both government aided schools and private and unaided schools? 76. The Constitution bench of the Apex Court, in State of U.P. & Ors Versus Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors 2014 (9) SCC 692, gave directions with regard to the government's obligation to provide grant-in-aid to the private schools. The case arose from challenge to the exclusion of classes 1 to 5, while giving grant-in-aid to the classes 6 to 8 in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 77. The Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act 1976, which came into force 8th January 1977, has brought about significant changes both in the letter and spirit of our parliamentary democracy. 78. In accordance with this principle at the end of Part IV of the Constitution, Fundamental Duties are incorporated (Part IV-A). Clause 11 in the Amendment Act deals with ten duties. The authority of the State to regulate by law various aspects of education is to be found in Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. 79. Clause 11 in the Amendment Act deals with ten duties. The authority of the State to regulate by law various aspects of education is to be found in Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. 79. The very fact that such an entry is to be found in List III (Concurrent List), indicates that it is the area where both the Parliament and each of the State Legislatures are simultaneously vested with the legislative competence to regulate the activity of education, which by definition includes medical education and technical education. Apart from the limitation on the competence of the State Legislature, with reference to the subject matter enumerated in the Concurrent List of the 7th Schedule, as specified under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the entry itself expressly limits the amplitude of the legislature field by making the same subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List 1. 80. The conflict in legislative competence of the Parliament and the State Legislatures having regard to Article 246 of the Constitution of India must be viewed in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court which in no uncertain terms state that each Entry has to be interpreted in a broad manner. Both the parliamentary legislation as also the State legislation must be considered in such a manner so as to uphold both of them and only in a case where it is found that both cannot co-exist, the State Act may be declared ultra vires. The Clause I of Article 246 of the Constitution of India does not provide for the competence of the Parliament or the State Legislatures as is ordinarily understood but merely provide for the respective legislative fields. 81. Entry 66 of List I provides for coordination and determination of standards inter alia for higher education. Entry 25 of List III deals with broader subject, namely, education. 81. Entry 66 of List I provides for coordination and determination of standards inter alia for higher education. Entry 25 of List III deals with broader subject, namely, education. On a conjoint reading of both the entries there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that although the State has a wide legislative field to cover, the same is subject to entry 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Once, thus, it is found that any State Legislation does not entrench upon the legislative field set apart by Entry 66, List I of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State Act cannot be invalidated. Therefore, the State Government has to re-examine the whole issue in the light of the changes that have been made. The Government has to keep in mind that Article 21-A of Constitution of India has been introduced and education has been made as fundamental right and Right to Education Act, 2009, has come in force. It became obligatory on the part of the State Government to improve the quality of education and maintain students-pupil ratio. Teachers should be free to concentrate on teachings. The teachers should not have insecure feelings. If their salaries are not paid by the Government, they cannot concentrate on teaching whereby, the purpose of Article 21-A of Constitution of India and the Right to Education Act, 2009, would be defeated. We should always keep in mind that Article 45 of the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India enjoined on the state to endeavour to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of fourteen years and the Right to Education Act, 2009, has been made to fulfil that object. 82. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the action of the state government in implementing the ban on recruitment through administrative orders/Circular/Executive instructions through Government Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2004 dated. 20.10.2004 which was issued under the Executive power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to the State Government require reconsideration. Any Memo/Executive Instructions by the State which have the effect of overriding the rules framed under provisions contained in Article 309 of the Constitution is not permissible as per the judgment in the case between V. Srinivas Reddy and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 1995 Suppl. Any Memo/Executive Instructions by the State which have the effect of overriding the rules framed under provisions contained in Article 309 of the Constitution is not permissible as per the judgment in the case between V. Srinivas Reddy and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 572 which view has been reiterated in State of Karnataka and other V. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association and others 2006 (1) SCC 567 ; S. Sivaguru Vs. State of T.N. (2013) 7 SCC 335 , Sarva U.P. Grain Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar Chalk (2013) 6 SCC 287 and in State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava 2013 (10) Scale 310. In the above decisions, it has been categorically held that executive instructions cannot supplant statutory rules and if statutory rule is not available, executive/administrative instructions/orders/Circulars can be issued to supplement and if any circular for executive instructions are issued contrary to the statutory rule, the same is inoperative. 83. A conjoint reading of Articles 251, 245(2), 254(1 & 2) of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the Parliament may at any time make a law in the matter, i.e., in the law made by the state by adding to or amending or varying or repealing the same and the central legislation shall prevail over the earlier State Legislation though received the assent of the President of India. Having regard to the above, the original and subsequent Central Legislations would prevail even if there is any inconsistency with the existing State law. The assent given by the President will not prevail over the subsequent or prior Central Legislation. (Refer State of Tamilnadu & Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors (1995) 4 SCC 104 : JT 1995 (3) SC 136; Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner & Secretary, Higher Education Department, Thiruvanantha puram, Kerala State & Anr (2000) 5 SCC 231 ; Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 ). 84. In view of the 86th Constitution amendment Act 2002 and the R.T.E. Act. 2009 and rules coming into force with effect from 01.04.2010 and since the central legislation would prevail, the ban on recruitment in private aided schools imposed by the Government appears to be contrary to the main object of the constitutional mandate. 84. In view of the 86th Constitution amendment Act 2002 and the R.T.E. Act. 2009 and rules coming into force with effect from 01.04.2010 and since the central legislation would prevail, the ban on recruitment in private aided schools imposed by the Government appears to be contrary to the main object of the constitutional mandate. Hence the memo of the State Government dated 20.10.2004 has to be declared as inoperative on the ground that the primary education field is also occupied by the Central legislation through the 86th Constitution Amendment Act. 2002 W.e.f. 1st April 2010 and the same has been uphold by the Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust's case (supra) and also by the decision in the case between Society for unaided schools of Rajasthan's case (supra). 85. There is no need to reiterate the importance of education. However, since there is every need to change the mind set of those concerned, it becomes necessary to discuss the importance of education. 86. In Rohit Singhal Vs. Jawahar N. Vidyalaya 2003 (1) SCC 687 , the Apex Court expressed its great concern regarding education for children observing as under:-- "Children are not only the future citizens but also the future of the earth. Elders in general, and parents and teachers in particular, owe a responsibility for taking care of the well-being and welfare of the children. The world shall be a better or worse place to live according to how we treat the children today. Education is an investment made by the nation in its children for harvesting a future crop of responsible adults productive of a well functioning Society. However, children are vulnerable. They need to be valued, nurtured, caressed and protected." 87. The importance of education has been recognized by the great leaders of the Indian freedom movement. Mahatma Gandhiji formulated the scheme of basic education, seeking to harmonise intellectual and manual work and stressed the importance of education. In the post-independence period, a major concern of the Government of India and of the States has been to provide free and compulsory education to the children of below the age of 14 years. They realized the important role of education and in making a person as a perfect human being. In the post-independence period, a major concern of the Government of India and of the States has been to provide free and compulsory education to the children of below the age of 14 years. They realized the important role of education and in making a person as a perfect human being. In the dawn of civilization, great universities such as Nalanda were established under the influence of the teachings of Goutama Buddha. This country has shown path to the world. Many students from other countries used to study in this country. 88. The debates in educational policy reflected the clash of interest between the British rulers and Indian leaders. While the former attempted to restrict education and impose a control with a view to stop students from taking active part in politics, the later always propagated the advantages of expansion of higher education as a tool of strengthening the national movement. The first attempt with regard education as a matter of right, was made way back in 1909 when Sri G.K. Gokhale introduced a Bill under the Indian Council Act of 1909 to make primary Education compulsory, with state funding. However the bill was defeated by a large majority. While addressing the legislatures, Sri Gokhale made an emotional observation that the issue would keep coming back again and again, until the right to free and compulsory education reaches every child of this country. 89. The Illiteracy constitutes a serious handicap for the development of the country in India. Therefore, at the time of adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950, the aim was to achieve the goal of Universalisation of Elementary Education (UEE). There are special safeguards in the Constitution that apply specifically to the Children. The Constitution has envisaged a happy and healthy childhood of children, which is free from abuse and exploitation. The Article 15(3) of the Constitution has empowered the State with the power to make special provisions for women and children. The word "life" includes education in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution and accordingly the Supreme Court has clarified that Right to Education is in fact, a fundamental right. The Apex Court has dealt with the importance of Articles 23, 24 and 39 of the Constitution of India which deals with the safeguards of children and the women. The word "life" includes education in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution and accordingly the Supreme Court has clarified that Right to Education is in fact, a fundamental right. The Apex Court has dealt with the importance of Articles 23, 24 and 39 of the Constitution of India which deals with the safeguards of children and the women. Article 45 of the Constitution requires the State to make provisions within 10 years for 'free and compulsory education' for all children until they complete the age of 14 years. Further, Article 46 declares that the state shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people. 90. The Secondary Education Commission (1952-53) was set up under the chairmanship of Dr. Lakshman Swami Mudaliar, who studied the problems of secondary education in India and suggested some changes to be introduced therein. It made valuable recommendations, after a thorough study regarding the objectives of education, reorganization of teaching institutions, medium of instruction and the system of examinations, in its report. However, in 1960, keeping in view the education facilities and the aim and objective of the Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE), and to facilitate the achievement of the UEE goal, The National Council of Education Research and Training (NCERT), the National Institute of Education Planning and Administration (NIEPA) and many other institutes were set up. In order to give access to elementary education for all children up to 14 years of age and for universal participation till they complete the elementary stage of education programs, the National Policy on Education (NPE) in 1968, the National Policy on Education 1986 have been setup to give an unqualified priority to the Universalisation of elementary education (UEE) program. 91. In 1964, the Government of India appointed an Education Commission, under the Chairmanship of Dr. D.S. Kothari, to advise the government on the policy of education. The Commission submitted its report in 1966. The report indicated the guidelines for formulation of a National Policy on Education in July, 1968, the Government of India declared its National Policy on Education. On the basis of the recommendations contained in the reports of the Commission, the Government took steps to introduce certain much needed changes in our system of education. The report indicated the guidelines for formulation of a National Policy on Education in July, 1968, the Government of India declared its National Policy on Education. On the basis of the recommendations contained in the reports of the Commission, the Government took steps to introduce certain much needed changes in our system of education. It aimed at increasing productivity, developing social and national unity, consolidating democracy, modernizing the country, developing social, moral and spiritual values, providing equal educational opportunities, developing languages and promoting scientific education and research. The commission emphasized the need to eradicate illiteracy and provide adult education. To achieve this, the Indian education policy proposed free and compulsory education for all children, up to the age of fourteen years. The true aim of education is to prepare a person to play his part well, as an enlightened member of society. Education means integrated development of personality. It should impart training to head, hand and heart. 92. Education gives knowledge and knowledge empowers a person to think, understand and to know what is what. Education makes a person to learn languages, skills, various subjects etc. He would be in a position to work effectively in his profession. Knowledge enhances his inherent talents, fine qualities as a human being. Of course, it cannot be said that only educated and knowledgeable persons have character and maintain values. It is most unfortunate that highly educated and knowledgeable persons have become corrupt, cruel and authoritarian. In fact, such persons will cause much harm to the society than an innocence and illiterate. However, no country can develop unless people are educated. Education is primary and basic need of the society. Education and character building - both are important. Unfortunately, people of other countries have been following the preachings of Goutam Budha, whereas the people of this Country are not making use of the same as required and, therefore, we find crisis in character building. Mere saying that socialist society is our object will not solve any problem unless we are committed to implement the socialist policies truly and honestly and unless we have concern for the poor and the suffering, the philosophy of the Constitution and its objectives and the Directive Principles of State Policy to be achieved would never be understood. Mere saying that socialist society is our object will not solve any problem unless we are committed to implement the socialist policies truly and honestly and unless we have concern for the poor and the suffering, the philosophy of the Constitution and its objectives and the Directive Principles of State Policy to be achieved would never be understood. The very fact that we are far away from reaching the goals of the Directive Principles of State Policy to reduce economic inequalities and enhance the living standards of common man reveal the true picture. 93. It is the duty and obligation of the state to provide free and compulsory education. It will be better if free education is made available from KG to PG level, i.e., till the student completes his education. In fact, the state should bear all the educational expenses. Rich or poor should have equal opportunities to study. No person should be denied education or feel it difficult to study. Till his quest for education is fulfilled, poverty, socio-economic or regional backwardness etc., should not come in the way of any student in acquiring education. It is better to take over all the private educational institutions and State should manage them. Till such time, there will be unequal opportunities to the poor and rich students and the discriminative treatment to a poor student cannot be prevented. 94. Due to socio-economic backwardness, the poor students will not have basic facilities in his house. Normally, his parents would be uneducated. Neither a dictionary nor a grammar book would be available in his house, whereas, all kinds of books and comfortable facilities would be available to a rich boy. As long as poverty and illiteracy is there, the real and true fruits of freedom and democracy would not reach the common man of this country. Unless the legislature, executive and judiciary is committed to the noble ideas of our constitution and make sincere and honest efforts to realise the goals of the constitution and the objectives to be achieved by the fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy, the noble ideas of freedom fighters would not become real. Every effort has to be made to make their dream real and then only, the aspirations of the people would be fulfilled. Every effort has to be made to make their dream real and then only, the aspirations of the people would be fulfilled. Every Government order, memo or policy decision should be in furtherance of the objectives to be achieved by the fundamental rights such as Article 21-A and the Directive Principles of state policy. No Government order or Memo or executive instructions should result in defeating any of the fundamental rights or the directive principles of state policy. 95. The role of private schools in imparting education came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case between Superstar Educational Society Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (3) SCC 315 and in the case between Avinash Mehrotra Vs. Union of India and others (2009) 6 SCC 398 . The role of the state in imparting education to its citizens came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case between R.D. Upadhyay Vs. State of A.P. and others AIR 2006 SC 1946 , wherein, the Apex Court held that the State must provide education to all the children in all places, even in prisons and also to the children of the prisoners. The Apex Court also affirmed the inviolability of Right to Education. In the cases between The Election Commission of India Vs. Saint Mary School and others 2008 (2) SCC 390 , Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India 2008 (1) SCC 1 , Bachupan Andolan Vs. Union of India 2011 (5) SCC 1 , State of Tamilnadu Vs. K. Shyamasunder and others (2011) 8 SCC 737 , State of Orissa Vs. Mamatha Mohanthy (2011) 3 SCC 436 , the Apex Court had categorically observed that Education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The Apex Court further relied upon the earlier judgment in the case between Osmania University Teachers' Association Vs. State of A.P. & Another AIR 1987 SC 2034 , wherein it has been held as under: "....Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs." 96. The role of teachers came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case between N.M. Nageshwaramma Vs. State of A.P. 1986 Supp. Dissemination of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs." 96. The role of teachers came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case between N.M. Nageshwaramma Vs. State of A.P. 1986 Supp. SCC 166, wherein, the Apex court observed as follows:-- "The teachers' training institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organized and equipped training institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched." 97. In the case between Andhra Kesari Educational Society Vs. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC 392 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:-- ".... Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teacher is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the "engine" of the education system. He is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefited (sic benefactor). He must keep himself abreast of ever-changing conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore, needless to state that teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with right scrutiny of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs of the day. The ill-trained or sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our educational system; if not a punishment on our children. The Government and the University must, therefore, take care to see that inadequacy in the training of teachers is not compounded by any extraneous consideration." 98. In the case between State of Rajasthan Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 , the Apex Court observed as follows:-- "The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. In the case between State of Rajasthan Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 , the Apex Court observed as follows:-- "The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. The formal educational needs proper equipment by the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance with the statutory requirement is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education." 99. Now it is not in dispute that primary education has become a fundamental right in view of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right to Education Act, 2009 has been enacted in furtherance of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. The constitutional validity of Right to Education Act has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case between Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan's case (supra). Various schemes have been introduced to improve the elementary education and enhance the academic standard and to provide basic facilities to the students. Rashtriya Madhyamika Siksha Abhiyan is one of the schemes introduced by the Government. The main object of the said scheme is to enhance standard of education. The State is under corresponding obligation to implement the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009. Rashtriya Madhyamika Siksha Abhiyan is one of the schemes introduced by the Government. The main object of the said scheme is to enhance standard of education. The State is under corresponding obligation to implement the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009. Now there is sharing pattern of fund between the Central Government and the State Government in implementation of Right to Free and Compulsory education Act and in view of the scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan. 100. The standard of education cannot be expected unless the teachers are determined to enhance the standards. It is the teacher who observes the students and shapes the future of the children. If a teacher is unable to meet his/her basic needs and if he/she is under stress and strain due to financial difficulties, how can we expect him/her to utilise all his/her mental abilities and concentrate on his/her work. The basic needs of a teacher must be fulfilled. He would not have to bother about the future of his own children or for their basic requirements or his family's minimum necessities. Cost of living has been increasing day by day. Medical expenses have become a burdensome. A teacher who has no security and who cannot fulfil his basic needs cannot perform his duties as expected. Therefore, it is in the interest of the nation and society that everybody should think how to improve the life standard of a teacher and thereby develop the nation. In view of the latest developments in the policies of the central government and in view of the latest schemes introduced by the Central Government and enactment of Right to Education Act, 2009, it appears that it is the obligation of the State Government to provide basic facilities and regular scales of pay to the teachers. There appears to be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of enactment of Right to Education Act, 2009, the memo issued by the Government in Memo No. 12080/COSE/A4/2004 dated 20.10.2004 require reconsideration and the Government cannot look into the matter with glasses worn about a decade ago. Moreover, the respondents cannot sit over the orders of this Court as appellate authority and again discuss the merits and demerits of the case. Moreover, the respondents cannot sit over the orders of this Court as appellate authority and again discuss the merits and demerits of the case. When a Court, after hearing both the parties, passes an order on the merits of the case and gives a direction to consider the case, the word 'consider' would not and should not be understood to give an authority to the officials to pass an order on the same points raised in the writ petition as if an appellate authority. The word 'consider' means, for all practical purposes, to implement the orders in its letter and spirit. 101. We hope and trust that the respondents in the writ petition, i.e., the petitioners herein would take correct decisions keeping in view the very object of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the subsequent steps that are intended and proposed to be taken by the Government in this regard. 102. I do not see any merit in this review petition. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed