ORDER : 1. These two writ petitions, one filed by the Director of Department of Pre-University Education, Bangalore and the other filed by Dr.Sanjeevarayappa N.C., arise out of the claim made by Dr.Sanjeevarayappa N.C., seeking salary admitted to grantinaid. Therefore both these matters are heard together and disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the causetitle in W.P.No.3242/2018. 2. The petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Hindi in the Institution run by the respondent No.4Management, on 07.06.2000. The subject of Hindi was granted recognition from 19971998, though the subject was introduced in the Institution where the petitioner was appointed, in the year 198384. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Sanskrit and Hindi subjects were introduced in the Institution in the year 198384, Sanskrit was given retrospective recognition from 198384, while Hindi was given recognition only from 199798. 3. From the records it is seen that this case has a checkered history. The respondent No.4Institution, made a representation to the concerned authority to consider the petitioner’s post of Hindi teacher under 3% budgetary allocation made for extension of grantinaid. However, the said proposal was not accepted. By order dated 07.12.2005 while the Government made 3% budgetary allocation for such persons who are appointed as additional candidates for additional sections, the proposal for including the petitioner’s post was again turned down. By communication dated 11.01.2007 and 08.02.2007, the Deputy Director recommended to the Commissioner and to the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education Department to extend the benefit of grantinaid retrospectively to the post of Hindi teacher in the fourth respondent-Institution. 4. When nothing further fructified, the petitioner moved the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by filing a complaint and seeking redressal of his grievance. The Commission passed an order dated 29.01.2010 directing the Director of Pre-University Education Department to grant recognition to Hindi subject, retrospectively from the year 198384, as was done in the case of Sanskrit subject. The Director Pre-University Education is before this Court assailing the order passed by the Commission. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein along with others, filed W.P.Nos.16801684/2013 seeking similar relief. By order dated 27.08.2014 this Court directed the petitioners therein to make a representation before the concerned authority. Consequently, the petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary. The Director Pre-University Education is before this Court assailing the order passed by the Commission. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein along with others, filed W.P.Nos.16801684/2013 seeking similar relief. By order dated 27.08.2014 this Court directed the petitioners therein to make a representation before the concerned authority. Consequently, the petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary. However, by order dated 07.11.2014 the Joint Director, Department of P.U.Education, rejected the representation filed by the petitioner and others. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed W.P.No.59939/2014. By order dated 31.07.2015, this Court dismissed the writ petition, however considering the fact that recommendation made by the Commissioner was still pending before the Principal Secretary, it was observed that the Government is free to take a decision on the said recommendation. Consequent thereto, the impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2017 was issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Pre-University Education Department, rejecting the request made by the Institution, to give retrospective approval for Hindi subject from 198384. 6. So far as the orders passed by the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission are concerned, having regard to the fact that the question involved herein has nothing to do with the powers and functions of the Commission as enumerated in Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Commission. 7. On a close reading of the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2017, it is clear that the Director, Pre-University Education, in the memorandum dated 27.03.1988, accorded approval to Hindi subject in the fourth respondent-Institution as permanently unaided, from 199798. It was also noticed that several such requisitions seeking retrospective recognition have been rejected and therefore it was felt that any order departing from the earlier considered orders would only open up a pandora’s box. 8. However, there is no whisper as to why retrospective grant was made in Sanskrit subject, while the same benefit was not given to Hindi subject. 8. However, there is no whisper as to why retrospective grant was made in Sanskrit subject, while the same benefit was not given to Hindi subject. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Additional Government Advocate, who was handling the matter in W.P.No.59939/2014, wrote a letter dated 01.03.2016 to the Principal Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education Department, bringing to the notice of the Principal Secretary that the Commissioner, vide letter dated 15.02.2008 had in fact recommended to accord retrospective grantinaid to Hindi subject also. This recommendation of the Commissioner is conspicuous by its absence having not been referred in the impugned endorsement. On the face of it, if there is no plausible explanation for according retrospective grantinaid to one subject, to the exclusion of another, the same should be held as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the State Government is unable to explain the basis for granting retrospective benefit to a teacher of one subject, while declining the said benefit to another teacher, such an action can only be termed as discriminatory and unsustainable. 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.3242/2018, stands partly allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-State Government and the Commissioner/Director of Pre-University Department is hereby directed to reconsider the prayer made by the petitioner and the fourth respondent-Institution and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. W.P.No.43666/2011 is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission is hereby quashed and set aside.