JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. The first petitioner is a Committee of Management of a Society, namely, Shri Brahmdev Krishi Madhyamik Vidyalaya, which runs a Junior High School. The second petitioner claims to be its Manager. It has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs: "I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 Principal Secretary (Department of Basic Education) Government of U.P. at Lucknow to take the institution of the petitioners on grant-in-aid list (and thus pay salary to the staff as stated in the paragraph No. 14 from the State Exchequer) in view of the Hon'ble Division Bench's judgment dated 05.12.2014 passed in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi and Another (reported as) further followed in writ petition nos. 62182 of 2015 and 24555 of 2016 decided on 05.11.2015 and 30.05.2016 (Annexure No. 4, 7 & 9 to this writ petition respectively). II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 24.02.2016 moved before him through DBSA and lastly sent through reminder dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure No. 11 to this writ petition) within a reasonable period of time to be determined by this Hon'ble Court." The grievance of the petitioners is that the Institution fulfills the norms for the for the grant-in-aid but the State Government has not considered it. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi & another v. State of U.P. & others, 2015(3) ADJ 567 (DB), wherein this Court has issued a direction to the State Government to revisit its age old policy in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject and in view of the effect of the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21-A, which enjoins the State Government to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra) expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.