Judgment : 1. The petitioners, 12 in number, assailed Memo No.1024/PS-2/2004, dated 10.11.2006 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st respondent, especially paragraph-5 of the said Memo, which, the petitioners assert, has the potential of depriving them of their employment. The petitioners are working in unaided posts as Secondary Grade Teachers in Aided Primary and Upper Primary Schools. 2. Before getting into the facts of the matter, it is apposite to extract the paragraph-5 of the impugned Memo, since heavy stress has been laid by the petitioners on it: "Government have considered the recommendations of the high level committee. As stated earlier it is not possible to either create new posts or fill up the vacant posts in view of the policy decision of the Government not to consider to create or fill up the posts. However, since the report of the Director of School Education indicates that there is need to have teachers in these schools, Government considers that these schools shall be given teachers to manage class rooms. Accordingly, surplus posts of teachers along with persons working therein be transferred to the needy aided schools as per rule 5(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.103, Education (Ser.V) Dept., dt.5-8-2005. Thus without additional financial commitment to the Government, this arrangement would help in proper utilization of the human resources available within the district. Therefore, the Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action accordingly. The Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad is also directed to suppress the posts from those schools where the posts and persons are shifted." 3. All the petitioners joined the 5th, 6th and 7th respondent schools as Secondary Grade Teachers in unaided vacancies between 1998 and 2000 and have still been working in the said posts. To streamline the process of admitting the teachers working in unaided posts into aided category in private aided schools, the Government in terms of Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 and also G.O.Rt.No.220, Education (SSE-I) Department, dated 24.02.1988, appointed a High Level Committee. Initially the District Level Committee, having visited the 5th to 7th respondent schools, recommended the names of the petitioners for getting their posts admitted into grant-in-aid. The High Level Committee, however, without examining the merits of the recommendations made by the District Level Committee, rejected the recommendations made by the said Committee. Initially the District Level Committee, having visited the 5th to 7th respondent schools, recommended the names of the petitioners for getting their posts admitted into grant-in-aid. The High Level Committee, however, without examining the merits of the recommendations made by the District Level Committee, rejected the recommendations made by the said Committee. Assailing the action of the High Level Committee, the managements of various schools, including those of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, filed W.P.No.6068 of 2004 and batch before this Court. 4. Through a Common Judgment dated 07.10.2005, this Court disposed of the Writ Petitions directing the High Level Committee to reconsider the matter. Consequently, the High Level Committee called for independent reports from the Regional Joint Directors concerned, who in turn, submitted their reports. Though the High Level Committee accepted the reports of the Regional Joint Director, when the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to implement the recommendations, the managements of the respondents 5 to 7 invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court and filed C.C.No.552 of 2006. Eventually when the contempt proceedings were pending, actuated by them, the respondent authorities passed orders in Memo No.1024/PS-2/2004, dated 10.11.2006. Assailing the said Memo, especially paragraph No.5 therein, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the recommendations initially made by the District Level Committee and subsequently, on the directions of this Court in W.P.No.6068 of 2004 and batch, accepted by the High Level Committee have been strictly in tune with the statutory parameters laid down in Section 3 of the A.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for brevity), read with Rules in G.O.Rt.No.220, Education (SSE-I) Department dated 24.02.1988 (‘the Rules’ for brevity). The learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of the impugned Memo reveals that a reference has been made therein to G.O.Ms.No.103, Education (Ser.V) Department, dated 05.08.2005. According to the learned counsel, the said G.O. was issued to set norms for the rationalisation of staff under various managements. The scope, purport and ambit of the said G.O. are altogether different, and one thus not at all relevant to the issue of admitting the posts of the petitioners into aided category. According to the learned counsel, the said G.O. was issued to set norms for the rationalisation of staff under various managements. The scope, purport and ambit of the said G.O. are altogether different, and one thus not at all relevant to the issue of admitting the posts of the petitioners into aided category. The learned counsel has further contended that if the impugned Memo is allowed to stand all the teachers including the petitioners working in unaided category would never be absorbed into aided category. The learned counsel has further asserted that those Secondary Grade Teachers working in unaided category would soon be out of the employment, since the said posts would be filled by the so-called surplus teachers from other schools. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that initially all the petitioners were selected and appointed, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education dated 01.01.1994. As such, as and when a vacancy arises in the aided category, all those teachers who have been recruited, though into unaided category after following the due process of selection, should be given the advantage of absorption of their services into aided category. Any deviation therefrom would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has further contended that the reasons assigned in paragraph-5 of the impugned Memo are not germane to the issue on hand and are in fact extraneous, incorporated by the authorities only with a view to defeating the rights of the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel has also stated that initially the authorities have harped on the issue of ban, which no longer is in existence, since this Court has already declared the said ban as illegal, as has been subsequently confirmed by the Apex Court. Taking this Court through the entire course of litigation, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that even on an earlier occasion this Court, through an elaborate judgment dated 07.10.2005 in W.P.No.6068 of 2004 and the batch, has declared the action of the authorities as without application of the mind. Despite the said pronouncement, the authorities have again taken shelter under G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 05.08.2005, which is without any justification. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged the Court to allow the Writ Petition. 8. Despite the said pronouncement, the authorities have again taken shelter under G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 05.08.2005, which is without any justification. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged the Court to allow the Writ Petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7 schools has submitted that those schools were established in 1983 with the student strength of more than 580. He has further submitted that the District Level Committee and subsequently the High Level Committee have identified 15 posts of Secondary Grade Teachers entitled to admission into grant-in-aid. It has been specifically contended by the learned counsel that in the entire Act, there is no provision for rejecting the recommendations of the High Level Committee; as such, the non-implementation of the recommendations made by the High Level Committee, by taking shelter under G.O.Ms.No.103, on the part of the respondent authorities, is highly arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has referred to Section 46 of the Education Act and has contended that the action of the respondent authorities ought to have been in conformity with the said provision. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 has supported the contentions of the petitioners 1 to 12. 9. The learned Government Pleader, in tune with the defence taken by the respondents 1, 3 and 4 in the counter affidavit, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioners, as have been supported by the respondents 5 to 7. The learned Government Pleader has strongly defended the Memo dated 10.11.2006 stating that the decision was taken by the authorities in terms of the policy that has been in existence, as has been enunciated in Rule 5(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.103, Education (Ser.V) Department dated 05.08.2005. 10. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that, having considered the recommendations of the High Level Committee, the Government has, after taking into account all eventualities, felt that it is not possible either to create new posts or to fill up the vacant posts, in view of the policy decision of the Government, which is referred to above. In any event since the report of the Director of School Education has indicated that there is need to have teachers in these schools, the Government has considered the said aspect positively and decided to post surplus aided teachers from other schools to the schools where the vacancies are available. In any event since the report of the Director of School Education has indicated that there is need to have teachers in these schools, the Government has considered the said aspect positively and decided to post surplus aided teachers from other schools to the schools where the vacancies are available. In fact, the schools which were given the benefit of transferring aided teachers into the existing vacancies also included the respondents 5 to 7 schools. The learned Government Pleader has defended G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 05.08.2005 stating that as a matter of policy, it was brought out for rationalisation of teacher posts in all educational institutions, including aided schools, and for streamlining the staffing pattern in the schools with more number of students and fewer sanctioned teaching posts and some schools with uneconomic strength of students, but with more teachers. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioners have no manner of right to insist that their services be taken into aided category. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 schools, apart from perusing the record. 12. A perusal of the record amply indicates that initially the managements of different schools had grievance that the Government was not permitting them to fill up the aided category posts in their schools, thereby affecting the quality of education to be imparted to the pupils in the said schools. Accordingly, many schools have come together and filed a batch of writ petitions with the following prayer: "To issue writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioner school into grant in aid w.e.f. 1.11.94 on par with the similarly situate schools as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to Act 22/88 and consequently set aside the 1st respondent impugned Memo No.1024/PS-1/2004-1 dt.20.10.2004 without jurisdiction and against the recommendations of the High Level Committee recommendations vide its letter No.1452/D2-1/1994 dt.28.10.1994." 13. A cursory glance at the prayer reveals that the grievance of the school management has not been person specific. A cursory glance at the prayer reveals that the grievance of the school management has not been person specific. In other words, the scope of the batch of the Writ Petitions is not with regard to drafting the services of the teachers working in unaided category into aided category, but is with regard to not admitting the said schools into grant-in-aid with effect from 01.11.1994. As far as the petitioners in the present writ petition are concerned, the outcome of the said writ petition may bring in some benefit, incidentally though. A learned single Judge of this Court through a very elaborate Common Judgment dated 07.10.2005 allowed the batch of Writ Petitions (3 writ petitions) including W.P.No.6068 of 2005 which was filed by the respondents 5 to 7 and other schools. While disposing of the batch of Writ Petitions, this Court has observed as follows: "The functions of the committee have been detailed in the aforesaid G.O.Rt.No.220, dated 27.01.1989. The second high level committee constituted by the Government must keep in view the guidelines issued by the Government while recommending the case of each of the institutions with regard to their entitlement for admission into grant in aid. The way in which the high level committee considered the cases of the petitioners would indicate the total non-application of mind to the guidelines issued for admission of institution into grant in aid. In these circumstances, I am left with no option except to direct the high level committee to reconsider the cases of the petitioners herein keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.220, dated 27.1.1989 and subsequent there to while recommending the cases of the petitioners/ institutions as their entitlement for admission into grant in aid. In the result, all these writ petitions are disposed of directing the high level committee to reconsider the cases of the petitioners herein for their entitlement for admission into grant in aid and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this orders. No costs." 14. This Court has evidently found that the action of the respondent authorities, which was assailed by the managements of different schools, has suffered from the vice of total non-application of mind vis-à-vis the guidelines issued for admission of institutions into grant-in-aid. No costs." 14. This Court has evidently found that the action of the respondent authorities, which was assailed by the managements of different schools, has suffered from the vice of total non-application of mind vis-à-vis the guidelines issued for admission of institutions into grant-in-aid. Accordingly, a direction has been given to the high level committee to reconsider the cases of the schools that have approached the Court, keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.220 dated 24.02.1988. 15. In the light of the above factual backdrop, and the rival submissions, the issue that falls for consideration is as follows: "Whether the Memo No.1024/PS-2/2004, dated 10.11.2006 issued by the Education (PS-2) Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh, especially paragraph No.5 therein, has the potential of rendering the petitioners jobless in course of time ?" 16. To appreciate the said issue in its correct perspective, it may be appropriate to extract the prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition, which is as follows: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Memo No.1024/PS-2/2004 dt.10.11.2006 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as para No.5 in the said Memo which deprives the petitioners of their employment, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers in their respective schools without filling up the posts of the petitioners with any one in the respondents 5 to 7 schools and also direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to admit the posts of the petitioners herein into grant-in-aid and pass such other order or order as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 17. Ostensibly the contention of the petitioners is that paragraph No.5 of the Memo will deprive the petitioners of their employment, and as such, it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As a consequential relief, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents (without specifying which respondents) to continue them as Secondary Grade Teachers in their respective schools. As a consequential relief, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents (without specifying which respondents) to continue them as Secondary Grade Teachers in their respective schools. As a further corollary to this consequential relief, the petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the authorities concerned not to fill up the posts with any other persons in the respondents 5 to 7 schools. Eventually, in the nature of a further consequential relief, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to admit the posts of the petitioners herein into grant-in-aid. 18. The analysis of the above prayer reveals the following: "(1) Paragraph No.5 of the Memo dated 10.11.2006 adversely affects the career prospects of the petitioners, nay, it has potential of depriving them of their employment; (2) Their position as Secondary Grade Teachers in their respective schools (presumably in the unaided category) shall be protected; (3) The posts (presumably aided ones) shall not be filled up with any [other] person in the respondents 5 to 7 schools; and (4) The 1st and 2nd respondents shall admit the posts of the petitioners into grant-in-aid." 19. In my considered view, the substantive prayer that has been made in the Writ Petition is a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to admit the posts of the petitioners into grant-in-aid. 20. Act 22 of 1988 has been brought into existence to regulate the grant-in-aid to the private educational institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This is a statutory culmination to the recommendations made by the committees appointed for devising the norms for applying the grant-in-aid to schools and colleges, i.e., Higher Education and Secondary School Education. Section 3 of the said Act speaks of regulation of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions and the same is as follows: "3. Regulation of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in G.O.Ms.No.238, Education (SSE) Department, dated the 27th May, 1986 and G.O.Ms.No.42, Education (CE) Department, dated the 19th September, 1985. Section 3 of the said Act speaks of regulation of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions and the same is as follows: "3. Regulation of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in G.O.Ms.No.238, Education (SSE) Department, dated the 27th May, 1986 and G.O.Ms.No.42, Education (CE) Department, dated the 19th September, 1985. (a) no private educational institution other than a college established after the 1st April, 1977 and existing on the 1st September, 1985 and no private college established after the 1st April, 1977 and existing on the 1st March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid [unless the Committee concerned constituted in G.O.Rt.No.220, Education (SSE-I) Department, dated the 27th January, 1989 and the Government Memo No.245/SSE-1/89-I, Education Department, dated the 9th February, 1989 recommends that it may be admitted to grant-in-aid; and (b) no private educational institution other than a College which has been established after the 1st September, 1985 and no private college which has been established after the 1st March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. (2) A private educational institution referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) in favour of which the Committee recommends the release of grant-in-aid shall be entitled to such grant only from the date it satisfies all the conditions for admission to grant-in-aid specified in the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the Rules made thereunder, the grants-in-aid Code and the orders and other instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf." 21. Rules 3 and 5 of the G.O.Rt.No.220 read as follows: "Rule 3. The functions of the Committee are as follows: 1. It will look into every case of grant-in-aid as may be pending or as referred to right from the inception of the grant-in-aid scheme and submit report to Government. 2. The Committee shall be the First Class Committee for purpose of T.A. & D.A. It will tour throughout the State inspect any account, visit any institution to satisfy itself about the running of the educational institutions in conformity with the Educational Act and the rules issued there under and satisfy itself whether public interest is kept in view and the institution is serving intended purpose of Educational Institutions, safeguard Government money. 3. All complaints received against the functioning of the Institutions, misuse of the grant-in-aid shall be referred to the Committee for careful consideration. 4. 3. All complaints received against the functioning of the Institutions, misuse of the grant-in-aid shall be referred to the Committee for careful consideration. 4. The pending complaints, as well as future references shall be referred to the Committee for their views/disposal. 5. No individual case of Grant-in-aid shall sanctioned unless the committee satisfied itself about the regularity and propriety running the institutions duly observing various rules and regulations attached to grant-in-aid and also other General rules and regulations. Rule 5.The Director of School Education/Director of Higher Education will assist the committee by making available the services of Sr. Joint Director/Regional Joint Director the better and efficient discharge of duties and responsibilities entrusted to this committee viz., scrutinizing the individual applications for grant-in-aid with reference to rules and regulations. The scrutiny will ensure the pre-use of the funds. All cases will be granted by the Government on the recommendations of the Committee." 22. It may be further relevant to observe that on 05.08.2005, i.e., prior to the Common Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.24848 of 2004 and batch, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has brought out G.O.Ms.No.103 fixing the norms for rationalisation of schools, posts and staff under various managements, viz., Government, Zilla Parishad, Mandal Praja Parishad, Municipal and Private Aided Schools. What has occasioned the bringing forth of the said G.O. is evident from the contents of the said G.O. The Director of School Education is said to have reported that there is a need to rationalise the schools and posts in Primary, Upper Primary and High Schools, as there are some schools with more number of pupils, but with fewer sanctioned teaching posts, and some other schools with uneconomic strength of pupils, but with more teachers. Thus, to rationalise the staffing pattern of the schools under various managements, the Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted a committee comprising the District Collector as the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Municipal Commissioner, Correspondent of the aided management schools concerned and District Educational Officer as members. In the said G.O., the norms for rationalisation of schools have also been spelt out. Rule 4 of the said G.O. concerns itself with norms for staff pattern for Primary, Upper Primary and High Schools, and Rule 5, with norms for shifting of surplus posts due to uneconomic strength. In the said G.O., the norms for rationalisation of schools have also been spelt out. Rule 4 of the said G.O. concerns itself with norms for staff pattern for Primary, Upper Primary and High Schools, and Rule 5, with norms for shifting of surplus posts due to uneconomic strength. Clause (iii) of Rule 5 deals with aided schools and it is as follows: "The posts shall be shifted to other Schools under the same management within the District if there is a need. If not, the posts shall be shifted to Government/Zilla Parishad/ Mandal Parishad Schools located in category IV, III, II, I areas in that order if there is a need. The surplus man power in the aided schools will only be transferred against the sanctioned and vacant posts in another aided school of the same management or of a different management." 23. From the above statutory scheme, the following are not in dispute: (1) Section 3 of the Act 22 of 1988 specifies which schools and educational institutions are entitled to grant-in-aid. Admittedly, the respondents 5 to 7 schools fall within the said category of eligible schools to receive grant-in-aid. (2) G.O.Rt.No.220 dated 24.02.1988 fixes the parameters to examine the applications from private managements for grant-in-aid and to make suitable recommendations thereto. By the time, W.P.No.24847 of 2004 and the batch were filed, G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 05.08.2005 was not in existence. Though the batch of writ petitions came to be disposed of subsequent to introduction of G.O.Ms.No.103, the scope of the said G.O. did not fall for consideration in the said common judgment. 24. The upshot of the above discussion is that identifying the posts to be admitted into grant-in-aid is one thing and filling up those posts is another thing. The grievance of the school managements ran to the extent of identifying the posts and admitting them to grant-in-aid. Once the posts in a particular school have been admitted to grant-in-aid, the manner of filling them up is not the grievance of the management of the particular school. Accordingly, the grievance of the school managements which filed the batch of Writ Petitions did not run to the extent of with whom the aided posts should be filled. Once the posts in a particular school have been admitted to grant-in-aid, the manner of filling them up is not the grievance of the management of the particular school. Accordingly, the grievance of the school managements which filed the batch of Writ Petitions did not run to the extent of with whom the aided posts should be filled. Thus, the directions of this Court in the common judgment dated 07.10.2005 in W.P.No.6068 of 2004 and the batch do not concern themselves with the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition. Accordingly, their case has to be examined independently without any reference to the previous judicial proceedings. 25. In this context, it is interesting to examine the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 5 to 7 – the school managements. Though the learned counsel for the said respondents, during his oral submissions, has supported the claim of the petitioners, the counter affidavit reads otherwise. It is profitable to extract a portion of the said counter affidavit which is as follows: "04. Normally the High Level Committee will consider the proposals of District Level Committee and send the recommendations to the 1st respondent for admitting into grant-in-aid along with the name of the approved un-aided teachers in the instant case the 1st respondent has considered the recommendations of the High Level Committee with regard to 5th, 6th and 7th respondent school and admitted the posts into grant-in-aid with surplus posts and teachers of other schools. Normally the procedure is as per the recommendations of the District Level Committee and High Level Committee the Government will consider the unaided post into grant-in-aid. In the said admitted posts the approved un-aided teachers will be absorbed by the competent authority. 05. No doubt that all the petitioners in their Writ Petition were appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.1 with the permission of the competent authority as per selection prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.1 Education dated 01.01.1994. The said appointments of the petitioners were approved by the competent authority by duly selected by the selection committee and there is no violation to the rules in making selections and giving appointments to the petitioners. 06. The said appointments of the petitioners were approved by the competent authority by duly selected by the selection committee and there is no violation to the rules in making selections and giving appointments to the petitioners. 06. I also further submitted that the 1st respondent issued Memo dated 10.11.2006 in that Para 5 the surplus posts of teachers along with persons working therein be transferred to the needy aided schools as per rule 5(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.103, Education (Ser-V), Department dated 05.08.2005. But Para 5(3) of G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 05.08.2005 reads as follows: 'The posts shall be shifted to other schools under the same management within the District if there is a need. If not, the posts shall be shifted to Government/Zilla Parishad/ Mandal Parishad Schools located in category IV, III, II, I areas in that order if there is a need. The surplus man power in the aided schools will only be transferred against the sanctioned and vacant posts in another.' In view of the above stated reasons, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the W.P." (emphasis added) 26. From the aforesaid discussion, there is no dispute to the extent of identifying the vacancies to be admitted into grant-in-aid and filling them up. Accordingly, the managements of the schools have not ventilated any further grievance. Now the solitary issue that still remains to be considered is whether only the unaided posts held by the petitioners should alone be admitted to grant-in-aid or that the grant-in-aid post should be filled up in any other manner. 27. To accept the contention that only the un-aided posts held by the petitioners should be admitted into grant-in-aid, there ought to be certain statutory provision mandating such a procedure. In other words, non-admission of the unaided post held by the petitioners to grant-in-aid shall be in violation of a certain statutory provision or rule. In the absence of infraction of any such statutory norm or violation of the civil, statutory or constitutional right of the petitioners, no mandamus shall be issued. This aspect shall be considered henceforth. 28. The other aspect i.e., filling up the grant-in-aid post in any other manner without statutory infraction, is a matter of policy. Indeed G.O.Ms.No.103 spells out the said policy. This aspect shall be considered henceforth. 28. The other aspect i.e., filling up the grant-in-aid post in any other manner without statutory infraction, is a matter of policy. Indeed G.O.Ms.No.103 spells out the said policy. This Court is constrained to observe that since no challenge has been laid against G.O.Ms.No.103, the vires of the G.O.Ms.No.103 or the soundness of the policy spelt out therein does not arise. A fortiori, it leaves us with only one option – to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid in the face of the policy laid down in the G.O.Ms.No.103. 29. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 has placed reliance on Section 46 of the Education Act, which deals with the power of the Government to withhold, reduce or withdraw the grant which has obviously been already granted to any particular educational institutions. I am afraid the said Section does not have any relevance to the facts of the present case, since it is nobody’s case that there is any issue of withholding, reducing or withdrawing the grant that has already been provided to the respondents 5 to 7. 30. Conceding that G.O.Ms.No.103, having the statutory force, has not been called in question, the policy enunciated in the said G.O. cannot be interfered with, much less interdicted. In fact, once surplus manpower, i.e., teachers, is identified in any aided schools, it shall be transferred and adjusted in the sanctioned aided vacancies of other aided schools of the same management or of a different management. In terms of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 5 to 7 schools, the 1st respondent has already considered the recommendations of the High Level Committee with regard to those schools and admitted the posts into grant-in-aid by transferring the surplus teachers of other schools. In fact, the counter affidavit further reveals that the High Level Committee recommended Eight Secondary Grade Teacher posts to the 5th respondent school, one post to the 6th respondent and two posts to the 7th respondent. Accordingly, the said posts have been admitted into grant-in-aid. Further, the counter affidavit reveals that the Government has expressed its willingness to adjust the excess manpower into other aided schools in the respondents 5 to 7 schools by way of transfer. Thus, the educational requirement of the schools has been fulfilled. 31. Accordingly, the said posts have been admitted into grant-in-aid. Further, the counter affidavit reveals that the Government has expressed its willingness to adjust the excess manpower into other aided schools in the respondents 5 to 7 schools by way of transfer. Thus, the educational requirement of the schools has been fulfilled. 31. Regrettably no material has been placed by the petitioners to contend that by way of admitting the aided posts by means of transfer from other schools, the unaided post of the petitioners are threatened. If any such effort is made on the part of the Government to displace the petitioners, the said action will provide them necessary cause of action to assert their rights and for their vindication thereof by approaching a Court of Law, in such an eventuality. In any event, this Court cannot issue a mandamus in anticipation of a threat to an existing right. Accordingly, the first limb of the prayer of the petitioners stands negated. 32. Concerning the relief sought by the petitioners by way of direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers in the respective schools, the impugned Memo dated 10.11.2006 does not spell out any scheme on the part of the respondent authorities that as soon as the identified posts are admitted to grant-in-aid, the equivalent posts in unaided category cease to exist. If there were to be any such contingency, this Court would not hesitate to hold that it would be manifestly illegal and arbitrary, subject to other policy parameters. Accordingly, it is held that there is no threat of displacement, and in the absence of such threat, no further direction need be given in that regard. 33. The other limb of the prayer, to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to admit the posts of the petitioners into the grant-in-aid shall invariably be considered in the light of the statutory scheme obtaining on the said issue. A perusal of Act 22 of 1988, G.O.Rt.No.220, dated 24.02.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, does not spell out any such scheme to hold that on admitting certain posts into grant-in-aid, only the incumbents shall be taken to fill up those posts. In any event, G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 05.08.2005 having statutory force should be read along with any other statutory scheme that has been in existence for the purpose of admitting the posts into grant-in-aid. In any event, G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 05.08.2005 having statutory force should be read along with any other statutory scheme that has been in existence for the purpose of admitting the posts into grant-in-aid. At the cost of repetition, it may have to be stated that G.O.Ms.No.103 spells out a particular scheme, which has not been challenged. In P.U.Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad ( AIR 2003 SC 2156 ), a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on which this Court, in the previous round of litigation initiated by the managements of the private schools, placed reliance states as follows: "BEFORE adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognized under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. Legislature and executive, the two facets of people's will, they have all the powers including that of finance. Judiciary has no power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self imposed discipline of judicial restraint. WHEN a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the constitution and if not, the court must strike-down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. WHEN a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the constitution and if not, the court must strike-down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sists in judgment on the action of a co-ordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action. the court is not an appellate authority. The constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.” 34. The fourth limb of the prayer that the posts held by the petitioners shall be admitted into grant-in-aid cannot be sustained unless through the impugned Memo especially paragraph No.5 therein, the respondent authorities have committed any statutory violation, infracting or negating any of the statutory or constitutional rights of the petitioners. Though it has been passingly mentioned that it is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, not much material has been placed, much less substantive arguments have been advanced, on this count to justify the said assertion. 35. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no other option than holding that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and shall fail. 36. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.