ORDER : R.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education, whereby the learned Principal Secretary has denied the benefit of grant-in-aid to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has completed M.A. in Hindi subject from Mysore University. On 1.6.1996, she was appointed as a Hindi lecturer in an unaided post. Since the date of appointment she is teaching Hindi in the Home Science department, as well as, for B.A. and B.Com., classes. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a part-time lecturer in the year 1996-97, but has a full work load and has been working as a lecturer on a regular basis. Since the petitioner has been working for a long time in the Kamala Nehru Memorial National College for Women, Shimoga, she has been repeatedly submitting representations, praying that the post for which she is working should be admitted to grant-in-aid. One such representation, dated 3.5.2012, was addressed to the Principal Secretary and to the Commissioner of Higher Education. Further, according to the petitioner, the Home Science course in the college was started in 1990, but due to shortage of students for the said course, the course was closed in the academic year 1998-99. Ever since then she has been working as a Hindi lecturer in the said college. Since the petitioner had submitted the representation dated 3.5.2012 and since the representation did not elicit any response, the petitioner filed a petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 22080/2012 before this Court. By order dated 3.7.2012, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Higher Educational authority. Subsequently, on 27.12.2012, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Principal Secretary. Since the said representation also did not elicit any reaction, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Principal Secretary, namely Petition No. 16/2012. However, by order dated 15.5.2013, the learned Principal Secretary dismissed the said petition. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Ms. Manjula D., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the petitioner has been working as a Lecturer since 1996. Initially, she was teaching Hindi in the Home Science department. Subsequently, from 1998 she began teaching Hindi in B.A. and B.com Courses. These Courses were started prior to June 1987. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Ms. Manjula D., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that the petitioner has been working as a Lecturer since 1996. Initially, she was teaching Hindi in the Home Science department. Subsequently, from 1998 she began teaching Hindi in B.A. and B.com Courses. These Courses were started prior to June 1987. Therefore, she was entitled to be granted the benefit of grant-in-aid. Secondly, by letter dated 11.12.2012, the college itself had recommended to the Regional Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, Shivamogga, that the benefit of grant-in-aid salary should be given to the petitioner. However, even this letter has been ignored by the learned Principal Secretary. Thirdly, relying on Rule 3 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Absorption of Persons Working as Part time Lecturers in the Aided Private Educational Institutions) (Special) Rules, 2003 ('Rules of 2003' for short), the learned counsel has pleaded that, since the petitioner had worked in the said college ever since 1996 till 2012, she was entitled to be absorbed under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003. However, the learned Principal Secretary has overlooked Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and Ms. Rashmi K., the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, have raised the following pleas before this Court:-- Firstly, the petitioner's case before the learned Principal Secretary was that she was working as a Hindi lecturer in the Home Science department. Home Science Course was not introduced till 1990. According to Rule 8(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education), Rules, 2003, (henceforth referred to as the Collegiate Education Rules, 2003) all private educational institutions established or permitted to be established prior to 1st June 1987 and started functioning from the academic year 1987-88 and onwards and also subjects/colleges established or permitted to be established with effect from 1st June 1987, were not entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. Since the Course in which the petitioner was working had commenced from 1990, obviously, the petitioner's course could not be included to grant-in-aid. Secondly, even if there was a recommendation made by the college to the Regional Joint Director, even the said recommendation is immaterial. For, the said recommendation was never acted upon. Since the Course in which the petitioner was working had commenced from 1990, obviously, the petitioner's course could not be included to grant-in-aid. Secondly, even if there was a recommendation made by the college to the Regional Joint Director, even the said recommendation is immaterial. For, the said recommendation was never acted upon. Thirdly, even Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003 does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. For, one of the requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003 is that the course should be approved for grant-in-aid. Since the Course was not approved for grant-in-aid, the petitioner could not be absorbed under the Rules of 2003. Fourthly, the petitioner is trying to create a new case with regard to her working as a Hindi lecturer for B.A. and B.Com., course after 1998. The said plea was not even raised before the Principal Secretary. Therefore, this plea cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, as well as the documents produced by the petitioner along with writ petition. 6. Rule 8 of the Collegiate Education Rules, 2003 is as under: Rule 8: Grant-in-aid: (1) All private educational institutions established or permitted to be established prior to the first day of June, 1987, and started functioning from the academic year 1987-88 and onwards and also subjects/colleges established or permitted to be established with effect from first day of June, 1987 shall be permanently ineligible for grant-in-aid. (2) Vacant and unapproved posts of non-teaching staff as on 1.3.2001 shall be permanently unaided. Any vacancies in the non-teaching posts which as arisen after 1.3.2011 on account of retirement, resignation, removal, dismissal and death etc., are to remain permanently unaided. Such vacancies which are unaided shall be filled by the management and salary and other allowances shall be paid from its own resources. (3) Grant-in-aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A bare perusal of the said rules clearly reveals that, according to Rule 8(1), all private educational institutions and subjects/colleges established, or permitted to be established with effect from 1st June 1987 shall be permanently ineligible for grant-in-aid. Thus, the benefit of grant-in-aid could be given to only those private educational institutions or to such subjects/colleges which were established prior to 1987. Thus, the benefit of grant-in-aid could be given to only those private educational institutions or to such subjects/colleges which were established prior to 1987. Moreover, according to Rule 8(3), grant-in-aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right. To include or not to include the college or a subject to the benefit of grant-in-aid, is a prerogative and the discretion of the Government. 7. Admittedly, the Home Science course was not started till 1990. Thus, under Rule 8(1) of the Collegiate Education Rules of 2003, the Course was ineligible for grant-in-aid. Moreover, under Rule 3, the petitioner would not have claimed grant-in-aid to be extended to her by way of right. The learned Principal Secretary has passed the impugned order only on these two grounds. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioner did not raise the plea that after 1998 she had been teaching as a Hindi lecturer in the B.A. and B.Com., courses. In fact, she did not even lead any evidence to show that the Hindi course for the B.A. and B.Com., had commenced prior to 1987. This new plea, based on fact, cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. Therefore, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly unacceptable. 9. As far as the contention based on the Rule of 2003 is concerned, Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003 is as under: Rule-3: Absorption of part-time lecturers in Private Aided First Grade Colleges.-(1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Karnataka Act 1 of 1985) and the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003, or any other rule relating to recruitment of lecturers in Private Aided Institutions made or deemed to have been made under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the management may absorb the services of a part time lecturer in the college in which he was or is working or in any other aided first Grade College under the same management with the approval of the Commissioner within the sanctioned strength and approved grant-in-aid post of lecturers having full time work load in the Aided First Grade College. Provided that where a part time lecturers cannot be absorbed under sub-rule (1) for want of vacancy he may be absorbed as and when a vacancy arises due to death, retirement or resignation or otherwise of a lecturer in the same aided First Grade College or any other aided First Grade College under the same management: Provided further that appointment shall not be made in these rules against any posts earmarked to be filled from among the candidates belonging to the Schedule Castes or the Schedule Tribes in accordance with the reservation provided by or under any law or any order, unless there are candidates belonging to those castes or tribes available from among the part time lecturers to be absorbed and such posts shall be treated as backlog and shall be filled accordingly. (2) For absorption of part-time lecturers under these rules, the college in which the part-time lecturer was or it working has to be taken as one unit. (3) In respect of the stop-gap lecturers and part time lecturers working in the same college, the stop-gap lecturers will have a precedence over the part time lecturers for absorption under these rules. 10. A bare perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 clearly reveals that before a part-time lecturer can be absorbed in a Private Aided college, certain conditions have to be specified, namely, there has to be an approval of the Commissioner, the post must fall within the sanctioned strength and the post must be approved for grant-in-aid. However, in the present case, there is neither the approval of the Commissioner nor is there any evidence to show that the post falls within the sanctioned strength nor was the post of Hindi lecturer even included within the grant-in-aid. Therefore, the benefit of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2003 cannot be extended to the petitioner. Most importantly, since the benefit of grant-in-aid cannot be claimed by way of a right, the petitioner has fail to establish as to how her civil, or fundamental rights have been violated by the respondents. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.