JUDGMENT : Vinod Chandran, J. This batch of appeals are against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in numerous writ petitions filed by the managements. The managements of schools, established and those aspiring to establish one, sought recognition of the Government as mandated under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ["RTE Act" for brevity]. A sizeable number are minority institutions. The appeals by the State are with respect to the findings of the learned Single Judge that the "assessment of educational need is only for the purpose of compelling Government or local authority to establish schools and not as a pre-condition for establishing such schools" (sic) (para 10). There were also contentions raised with respect to the guidelines framed by the State, which stood modified by the learned Single Judge in the review petitions filed. The State is not challenging those findings, since a Division Bench, while admitting the appeals, directed the State Government to consider the recognition based on the norms appealable to the respective Boards, like CBSE, ICSE, etc. The Government has conceded to that position and has also issued Circulars in accordance with that. 2. The appeals by the minority institutions assail the findings of the learned Single Judge, which puts such institutions at par with others, on the aspect of compliance of the various conditions stipulated in the notification and the RTE Act. They assert, they are totally absolved from the provisions of that Act by virtue of the protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Advocate General C.P Sudhakara Prasad, argued based on the documents produced in W.A.Nos.173 of 2019 and 363 of 2019. It is pointed out that a total of 796 applications for recognition were received from managements who wish to affiliate their schools with CBSE. The District Educational Officer ["DEO" for brevity] considered the same and rejected 534 applications, while recommending 262. The Director of Public Instruction ["DPI" for short] found that out of the recommended schools, 134 schools had prior recognition. 52 were defective applications, which were directed to be rectified. 56 applications were recommended by the DPI. As far as the recognition for schools seeking affiliation to the State Board, 371 were received, which are under process. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that all these applications would be considered based on the respective norms for affiliation. 52 were defective applications, which were directed to be rectified. 56 applications were recommended by the DPI. As far as the recognition for schools seeking affiliation to the State Board, 371 were received, which are under process. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that all these applications would be considered based on the respective norms for affiliation. There would be no consideration of educational need as provided in the Rules with respect to these applications. 4. However, the learned Advocate General would assert that in the coming years there is a requirement to consider the educational need in processing the applications as prescribed under the Rules. The learned Advocate General specifically takes us to Rule 14(14) of the Kerala Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as "Kerala Rules of 2011"], which speaks of conforming to the norms and standards specified in the Schedule and those mentioned in these Rules and the proven educational need of the locality in which the school is proposed, as revealed from the school mapping carried out by the authorized agency, certified by the local authority and the Assistant Educational Officer ["AEO" for brevity]. This prescription is as allowed under Section 30 of the RTE Act. The educational need definitely has to be assessed by the authorities under the Government, failing which there would be mushrooming of schools which is not conducive to provision of better education. The State while conceding to the mandate insofar as the RTE Act to provide education in the event of there being insufficiency of primary schools also asserts its power to reject the applications if there is a saturation of the educational need. 5. The learned Advocate General relies on the decision of a learned Single Judge reported in Manager, LPGS, Veliyam, Kollam v. State of Kerala [ 2015 (3) KHC 703 ], which has been approved by a Division Bench, also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the learned Advocate General, the impugned judgment requires interference insofar as finding that the educational need cannot be a criteria for rejecting an application for recognition. The Government, for the purpose of consideration of applications for recognition, insists on compliance with the Schedule to the RTE Act, the guidelines of the respective Boards and the educational need of the locality or a neighbourhood. The Government, for the purpose of consideration of applications for recognition, insists on compliance with the Schedule to the RTE Act, the guidelines of the respective Boards and the educational need of the locality or a neighbourhood. The learned Advocate General also refers to Government Order dated 01.03.2019, produced as Annexure-I in W.A.No.173 of 2019 along with the statement dated 30.05.2019, as a reference point, resorted to for the consideration of applications from managements of schools desiring to get affiliation in Boards other than the State Board. Government Order dated 22.05.2019, produced in W.A.No.363 of 2019 as Annexure A1, has the stipulations with respect to schools seeking recognition with intention of affiliating with the State Board. The learned Advocate General specifically points out that the policy of the Government in the applications now pending before it and considered as per the directions of the Division Bench, is more of grant and not rejection; without looking at educational need. However, the future applications would be only in consonance with the Rules and after reckoning the educational need in any neighbourhood or locality. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Sanjay R. Hegde, appearing for the Association of schools joins issue with the State even on the question of recognition on the basis of the norms of the affiliating body. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the RTE Act provides a Schedule, which alone has to be looked at for the purpose of granting recognition. The State cannot add or subtract from it. Section 18 of the RTE Act is very clear insofar as providing for verification of the matters in the Schedule alone while considering a recognition. The RTE Act provides for recognition on the basis of the stand alone Schedule. The intention of bringing in the RTE Act itself was to make operational the principles enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution and ensure free and compulsory primary education on minimum standards prescribed in the Act. The Government Orders as pointed out by the learned Advocate General; confuse recognition with affiliation norms, which cannot be. The learned Senior Counsel also makes a reservation insofar as the Government Orders pointed out by the Government being subject of consideration before the learned Single Judge in separate writ petitions filed by the managements. 7. The Government Orders as pointed out by the learned Advocate General; confuse recognition with affiliation norms, which cannot be. The learned Senior Counsel also makes a reservation insofar as the Government Orders pointed out by the Government being subject of consideration before the learned Single Judge in separate writ petitions filed by the managements. 7. On the question of educational need, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that while the RTE Act mandates the Government to provide education where there is insufficiency, it does not speak of a saturation of the educational need. The Government by making a prescription with respect to educational need, which is alien to the RTE Act, cannot thrust upon the students the notions of education which the Government harbours; which cannot even fall under the ambit of a policy. The student and parent has the ultimate say and has to be provided with the widest options available even with respect to private education. The State cannot provide a fetter on the ground of educational need which would in fact interfere with the tenor and purport of Article 21A, which is a fundamental right; the implementation of which is the very intention of the RTE Act. 8. On the question of minority institutions, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is more as a precautionary measure that the appeals are filed; especially when a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the RTE Act has no application to the minority institutions. The learned Senior Counsel would specifically assail the statement made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 12 that the issue considered by the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India [ 2014 (2) KLT 547 (SC)] is particularly confined to Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act and with regard to the definition of 'school' as referred under Section 2(n)(iv). The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is confined to the challenge made to the aforesaid provisions, was the categoric finding. However, a reading of the judgment would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the RTE Act itself would not apply to a minority institution, whether it be aided or unaided. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is confined to the challenge made to the aforesaid provisions, was the categoric finding. However, a reading of the judgment would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the RTE Act itself would not apply to a minority institution, whether it be aided or unaided. It is pointed out that this aspect would be argued by the various parties when the challenge to the Government notifications, now produced before this Court dated 01.03.2019 and 22.05.2019, which adopt a different principle from that adopted by the learned Single Judge in the review are heard. It is argued that the observations of the learned Single Judge as to the decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust being confined to admission of students from marginalized sections of the society and disadvantageous groups be set aside and the issue be kept open. 9. Sri.Mohan Jacob George, who appears in many of the appeals filed by the institutions – all minority institutions – treads a different path from that taken by the learned Senior Counsel who appears for the Association of Schools. The learned Counsel would first point out that the order in review is incompetent. The judgment was never taken up by the State in review in all the writ petitions. A single review was filed and all the disposed off writ petitions were posted together without even serving a copy of the review petition on the other writ petitioners. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge could not have passed an order on review and made it applicable to the other writ petitions; in which a judgment had already been passed and no review filed by the State. In the solitary review petition, the Government had produced a set of guidelines, which have been modified to some extent by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel would submit that the order in review, in any event, has to be set aside. The common judgment taken in the batch of writ petitions is assailed on the aspect of the effect of the RTE Act to the minority institutions. 10. The learned Counsel would submit that the order in review, in any event, has to be set aside. The common judgment taken in the batch of writ petitions is assailed on the aspect of the effect of the RTE Act to the minority institutions. 10. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Society for Un - aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India [ (2012) 6 SCC 1 ] held that the RTE Act will not be applicable to unaided minority schools. Later, there was a reference made by another Bench, which culminated in the decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust. The Larger Bench of five learned Judges, in that decision upheld the earlier decision insofar as it held that the RTE Act would not be applicable to unaided minority institutions. However, with respect to aided minority institutions also, the Larger Bench held that the RTE Act would not be applicable. This settles the issue insofar as the minority institutions are concerned and there can be no mandate of a recognition under the RTE Act of 2009 insofar as minority institutions. 11. It is the further case of Sri.Mohan Jacob George that there are many schools established and administered by minority institutions which cater to the marginalized sections of society and disadvantageous groups alone; that too of the minority community. They only cater to elementary education and in many cases children do not go beyond the elementary school. The attempt is to at least provide elementary education to such sections of society and they cannot be directed to affiliate to one or other Board, which mandate also arise only under the RTE Act. There is nothing other than the RTE Act and the Rules framed by the State to prohibit such minority institutions from carrying on the elementary education, on a syllabus devised by themselves or adopted either from the NCERT or SCERT, but requiring no affiliation in any of the Boards existing within the country. The said schools also could seek a switch over and seek for affiliation at a later stage. They cannot be asked to close down merely under the provisions of the RTE Act. The said schools also could seek a switch over and seek for affiliation at a later stage. They cannot be asked to close down merely under the provisions of the RTE Act. These students, when it is possible for them, after elementary education, seek further education under various systems existing in the country which do not provide for any stringent terms of affiliation. For example, the National Institute of Open Schooling, under the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India is one such mode. It is also argued that there are other Boards recognized universally, but not having a formal recognition within India under whom, systems of education are carried on which are recognized by the Universities in the country and the State. We notice immediately that there is not even one appeal pointed out by the learned Counsel where the appellant-institution is affiliated to such a Board. 12. At the outset, we have to note that we are, in all these matters, concerned only with elementary education, which alone is regulated by the provisions of the RTE Act, including a mandate as to recognition for schools carrying on elementary education within the country. We also have to find that the order in a solitary review petition is incompetent. It is argued by the learned Advocate General that all the writ petitions which were disposed of by the impugned judgment were posted along with the review petition. The review in one writ petition, cannot regulate the issue in the other writ petitions, where judgment rendered has become final, against which now appeals are filed. We would not say anything further of the order on review, since as of now the guidelines framed by Government and placed before the learned Single Judge, for the purpose of considering recognition of schools and modified by the learned Single Judge, is not relied on by the Government. The Government has gone by the interim order passed in the Writ Appeals, which directed consideration of the recognition on the basis of the norms existing for affiliation with the respective Boards. The order in review, is irrelevant, as of now. 13. The Government Orders dated 01.03.2019 and 22.05.2019 produced as Annexure-I respectively in W.A.No.173 of 2019 and W.A.No.363 of 2019, are challenged in subsequent writ petitions pending before the learned Single Judge. The order in review, is irrelevant, as of now. 13. The Government Orders dated 01.03.2019 and 22.05.2019 produced as Annexure-I respectively in W.A.No.173 of 2019 and W.A.No.363 of 2019, are challenged in subsequent writ petitions pending before the learned Single Judge. Wherever the Government has rejected the applications, the affected managements would have to challenge the same, being a fresh cause of action. Hence, it may not be proper for us to consider whether the Government Orders and the terms noticed therein are sustainable. Suffice it to observe that we are of the opinion that the consideration in accordance with the terms of affiliation cannot be faulted. In this context, we notice the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala & Another v. Mythri Vidya Bhavan English Medium School & Others [ AIR 2018 SC 2258 ]. Therein, a guideline of the State Government requiring a minimum of three acres of land for obtaining a No Objection Certificate [NOC] to establish a CBSE school was struck down along with the prescription of a minimum of 300 students, holding the conditions to be onerous, arbitrary and totally lacking in any rationale. 14. Mythri Vidya Bhavan E.M.S proceeds on the finding that the CBSE having done its home work well, has taken a pragmatic view of the requirement of land, considering the terrain of the locations in the various States. It was not open for the State Government to prescribe a condition in addition to or in excess of that prescribed by the CBSE. It was also noticed that the Government schools in the State did not satisfy either of the conditions of extent of land and minimum student strength; which also did not provide the facilities the private managements were providing. The Court specifically referred to the ground of mushrooming schools, raised by the State there too; to reject establishment of Schools with affiliation to the CBSE. It was held; that admitted fact only indicated the public education system run by the Government, to be wanting and lacking the desired quality of education. The State Government was found to have no such authority to make additions to these conditions, in excess of that prescribed by the affiliating body. There the State had required a minimum extent of 3 acres of land while the affiliation norms of the CBSE required only 2 acres. The State Government was found to have no such authority to make additions to these conditions, in excess of that prescribed by the affiliating body. There the State had required a minimum extent of 3 acres of land while the affiliation norms of the CBSE required only 2 acres. Here, the State has agreed to follow and look at the affiliation norms in considering recognition under the RTE Act. 15. We cannot ignore the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Associations that recognition and NOC are distinct concepts. The learned Advocate General for the State submits that, according to the Government it is one and the same especially when the terms of affiliation are verified by the State along with the educational need to grant recognition as directed by this Court. The Association of Schools, however, submit that in granting recognition what the State has to verify is only whether the school complies with the conditions in the Schedule of the Act. It has also been argued that Section 18 of the RTE Act mandates the stipulations in the Act and Schedule alone to be verified. We cannot accept the said contention looking at Section 18(1) and (2), which are extracted hereunder: "18. No school to be established without obtaining certificate of recognition.- (1) No school, other than a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or the local authority, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be established or function, without obtaining a certificate or recognition from such authority, by making an application in such form and manner, as may be prescribed. (2) The authority prescribed under sub-section (1) shall issue the certificate of recognition in such form, within such period, in such manner, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that no such recognition shall be granted to a school unless it fulfils norms and standards specified under Section 19". {underlining by us for emphasis} 16. We also have to notice Section 38, which is the rule making power of the appropriate Government. We extract hereunder Section 38(1) and Section 38(2)(h). "38. Power of appropriate Government to make rules.- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, make rules, for carrying out the provisions of this Act. {underlining by us for emphasis} 16. We also have to notice Section 38, which is the rule making power of the appropriate Government. We extract hereunder Section 38(1) and Section 38(2)(h). "38. Power of appropriate Government to make rules.- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, make rules, for carrying out the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- xxx xxx xxx (h) the form, the period, the manner and the conditions for issuing Certificate of Recognition, under sub-section (2) of Section 18". {underlining by us for emphasis} 17. Sub-section (2) of Section 18 provides for the issuance of a certificate of recognition in such form, within such period, in such manner and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed. Hence, the form, the period and the manner of issuance; as also the conditions could be prescribed by the State Government. The proviso additionally mandates that no recognition shall be granted to a school unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified under Section 19, which Section 19 speaks of the Schedule enumerating such norms and standards. We would understand the provision as a mandate to consider recognition only when the school fulfils the norms and standards specified in the Schedule, but leaving authority to the appropriate Government to prescribe the other conditions which would not in any manner dilute the norms and standards specified in the Schedule. The learned Senior Counsel had referred us to Section 20, which confers power to amend the Schedule, exclusively on the Central Government. Prescription of conditions under Section 18(2) without interfering with the norms and standards, or diluting the same in any manner, as specified in the schedule would not be an amendment to the Schedule and the appropriate Government has sufficient powers to do that. 18. Further, our interpretation is in harmony with Section 38(2)(h) as extracted hereinabove. The rule making power also confers power on the State Government to prescribe the conditions for issuing a certificate of recognition. The State Government wisely has adopted the terms of affiliation as the conditions for recognition, which, though not prescribed, has been specified in the manner of guidelines. Further, our interpretation is in harmony with Section 38(2)(h) as extracted hereinabove. The rule making power also confers power on the State Government to prescribe the conditions for issuing a certificate of recognition. The State Government wisely has adopted the terms of affiliation as the conditions for recognition, which, though not prescribed, has been specified in the manner of guidelines. We would steer clear of looking at the guidelines as per the Government Orders mentioned above for reason only of the challenge raised against it, pending before the learned Single Judge. Mythri Vidya Bhavan E.M.S also found the authority of the Government to prescribe conditions, to be curtailed, on a reading of the affiliation norms of the CBSE. But, in the context of the adoption of the affiliation norms, we would agree with the learned Advocate General that there is not much difference between recognition and NOC. 19. The Association of Schools maintain that recognition, is only on the basis of the Schedule and NOC is issued after looking at the terms of affiliation. We do not agree with the said contention and find the recognition and NOC by the State Government to be one and the same in the context of the State Government looking at the affiliation norms of the respective Boards for the purpose of granting recognition. Recognition, again, is not only a statutory mandate as per the RTE Act but also a requirement of the affiliation norms of the CBSE. We also have to notice that the learned Counsel appearing for the respective Boards, here the CBSE and ICSE, agreed with the procedure adopted by the State and also are in favour of the same, since, admittedly, they do not have the infrastructure or staff to carry out such verification. They only submit that the recognition cannot be taken as a mandate for affiliation, which the respective Boards will have to consider on the basis of their Regulations or Bye-laws. We have to concede such power to the respective Boards and the recognition alone would not enable affiliation; the later of which has to be considered on the terms of affiliation by the respective Boards. 20. We have to concede such power to the respective Boards and the recognition alone would not enable affiliation; the later of which has to be considered on the terms of affiliation by the respective Boards. 20. In the appeals, we are also concerned with two issues (i) as to whether citing educational need the State could reject an application for recognition and (ii) whether the recognition could be insisted for the minority institutions, whether it be aided or unaided. 21. On the issue of educational need, the learned Advocate General specifically takes us through Rule 14(14) of the Kerala Rules of 2011, which is extracted hereunder: "R.14(14) An educational agency or society proposing to start a new school or upgrade an existing school shall furnish an application in the prescribed format Form No.III and shall conform to the norms and standards specified in the Schedule and those mentioned in these rules, and the locality in which the school is proposed to be started has a proven educational need as revealed in the school mapping carried out by the authorized agency and such educational need shall be certified by the local authority and the Assistant Educational Officer concerned". The (underlined) emphasis is on the locality in which the school is proposed to be started, having a proven educational need as revealed in the school mapping carried on by the authorized agency and such educational need being certified by the local authority and the AEO concerned. Manager, LPGS, Veliyam, Kollam, after perusing the provisions of the RTE Act, enumerated the obligations of the Government under the Act. There was a reference to the educational need and the manner in which it is to be determined on a reference to the demarcated territorial limits of a local authority and the population within the area. There is no declaration discernible as to the specific argument raised by the State, on educational need, in these batch of writ petitions. We find the decision to have no application to these cases. 22. The above mentioned Rules are pressed into service especially referring to Section 2(a)(ii)(A), Sections 3 and 6 read with Sections 18 and 38(2)(h). There is no declaration discernible as to the specific argument raised by the State, on educational need, in these batch of writ petitions. We find the decision to have no application to these cases. 22. The above mentioned Rules are pressed into service especially referring to Section 2(a)(ii)(A), Sections 3 and 6 read with Sections 18 and 38(2)(h). Section 2(a)(ii)(A) provides for "appropriate Government", which with respect to a school established within the territory of a State, is the State Government if such school is not owned or controlled by the Central Government or the Administrator of a Union Territory. Section 3 provides for the right of a child to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his/her elementary education and Section 6 provides a duty on the appropriate Government or the local authority to establish, within such area or limits of neighbourhood, a school within three years from the commencement of the RTE Act. Hence, educational need has to be assessed by the State Government and the same is the reigning criteria insofar as establishment of schools as also for their recognition which could also result in the rejection of application for recognition if there are enough schools in the locality or neighbourhood to cater to the needs of the children between the age of six to fourteen years, is the compelling argument of the State. 23. The compulsion on the State or the appropriate Government to provide free and compulsory education according to the educational need as provided for in the Act cannot result in a negative finding, on the application for recognition, based on the assumed saturation of the educational need by the existing schools. The State Government cannot thrust upon the parents or the students its own ideas or notions of quality education and curtail the option of the students/parents to receive the best education according to their choice. Educational need can only act as a compulsive force; a statutory force too, to compel the State Government to establish sufficient schools for the purpose of elementary education in a locality if there are not enough schools to provide that. Even when there are umpteen number of schools, the State Government cannot find a saturation of the educational need and thus reject the recognition of an application for establishment of a school which otherwise is permissible. Even when there are umpteen number of schools, the State Government cannot find a saturation of the educational need and thus reject the recognition of an application for establishment of a school which otherwise is permissible. This is precisely what Mythri Vidya Bhavan E.M.S observed, as to the public education in the State wanting in quality; if there is mushrooming of schools affiliated to the CBSE. The State cannot monopolize education or canvass the education provided in schools affiliated to the State Board and to that end reject affiliation under other Boards having national recognition and presence. If that be done it would only result in fettering and curtailing the option available to the students and parents to get the best education possible. That is not the intention of the RTE Act, which aims at providing free and compulsory education to all, in implementation of the constitutional mandate under Article 21-A. The RTE Act does not envisage any curtailment or confinement of elementary education to one or the other modes. If such a restriction is provided it would go against the constitutional vision of free and compulsory education. The prescription of educational need to reject an application for recognition would hence be ultra vires the statute and the Constitution. We uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge on the aspect of educational need, not enabling the State to reject an application for recognition. The provision in the rules would stand read down to that extent. 24. We then come to the challenge raised by the minority institutions against the mandate of a recognition under the Act of 2009. The learned Single Judge has found that the protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution could only enable the management of the minority institutions to admit students without any fetter as noticed from Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. We are, however, unable to agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge especially looking at the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Society for Un - aided Private Schools of Rajasthan and Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust. The learned Advocate General as also the learned Counsel for the respective Boards emphasized, the well established principle of lawfully imposed restriction in the conduct of a school by the Legislature or the Executive as a condition for receiving grant or recognition, not necessarily impairing the rights of the minority institutions. The learned Advocate General as also the learned Counsel for the respective Boards emphasized, the well established principle of lawfully imposed restriction in the conduct of a school by the Legislature or the Executive as a condition for receiving grant or recognition, not necessarily impairing the rights of the minority institutions. It is also argued that the consideration in both the aforesaid decisions was confined to whether the minority institutions should admit 25% of the strength of Class-I from children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantageous group in the neighbourhood, for providing free and compulsory elementary education, as provided for in Section 12(1)(c). 25. We cannot but notice paragraphs 59, 62 and 63 of Society for Un - aided Private Schools : "59. The above well-settled principles have to be seen in the context of 2009 Act enacted to implement Article 21-A of the Constitution. At the outset, the question that arises for consideration is what was the intention of Parliament? Is the 2009 Act intended to apply to unaided minority schools? xxx xxx xxx 62. Reservations of 25% in such unaided minority schools result in changing the character of the schools if right to establish and administer such schools flows from the right to conserve the language, script or culture, which right is conferred on such unaided minority schools. Thus, the 2009 Act including Section 12(1)(c) violates the right conferred on such unaided minority schools under Article 30(1). 63. However, when we come to aided minority schools we have to keep in mind Article 29(2). As stated, Article 30(1) is subject to Article 29(2). The said article confers right of admission upon every citizen into a State-aided educational institution. Article 29(2) refers to an individual right. It is not a class right. It applies when an individual is denied admission into an educational institution maintained or aided by the State. The 2009 Act is enacted to remove barriers such as financial barriers which restrict his/her access to education. It is enacted pursuant to Article 21-A. Applying the above tests, we hold that the 2009 Act is constitutionally valid qua aided minority schools". {underlining by us for emphasis} 26. The question specifically considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noticed from paragraph 59 is the application of the 2009 Act [RTE Act]. It is enacted pursuant to Article 21-A. Applying the above tests, we hold that the 2009 Act is constitutionally valid qua aided minority schools". {underlining by us for emphasis} 26. The question specifically considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noticed from paragraph 59 is the application of the 2009 Act [RTE Act]. In paragraph 62 it was categorically held that "2009 Act including Section 12(1)(c) violates the right conferred on such aided minority schools under Article 30(1)". Paragraph 63, wherein the Act of 2009 was found to be 'constitutionally valid qua aided minority schools' has been overturned by a Larger Bench in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, from which we notice paragraph 56: "56. In the result, we hold that the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005 inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution and the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21-A of the Constitution do not alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and are constitutionally valid. We also hold that the 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We, however, hold that the 2009 Act insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution. ..." {underlining by us for emphasis} 27. We cannot disagree or differ from the binding precedents of the aforesaid decisions and we have to find the minority institutions to be excluded from the RTE Act and the mandate of recognition. But, however, in getting an affiliation from a duly constituted Board, the Regulations framed are mandatory in character. Necessarily even a minority institution will have to comply with the terms or conditions for affiliation under the respective Boards. We noticed at the outset that we are only concerned with the elementary education, for which, according to Sri.Mohan Jacob George, learned Counsel appearing for certain appellants-managements; even a non-minority institution would not require a recognition if the affiliation norms of a Board does not provide for such recognition to be obtained from the Government. We also notice that there is not a single non-minority institution before us in appeal. 28. We also notice that there is not a single non-minority institution before us in appeal. 28. Sri.Mohan Jacob George has argued that there are many Boards other than CBSE and ICSE, which are recognized by the Universities within the State itself, like Edexcel IGCSE, GCE 'O' level and 'A; level, which are recognized as equivalent to 10+2. There is also National Institute of Open Schooling, which affiliates schools for Open Basic Education (OBE) programmes with 'A' Level equivalent to Class I to III, 'B' Level with Class I to V and 'C' Level with Class I to VIII. The CBSE Regulations also speaks of affiliation from the Middle Level and does not speak of affiliation from a Primary Level. The contention raised is that there are many individuals and institutions, incorporated and otherwise, who carry on elementary education in backward areas to equip the children from such backward areas for a better tomorrow. They provide facilities far in excess of that provided by the Government, purely as a charitable activity and there cannot be a shutting down of such institutions on the ground of there being no educational need or a rejection simpliciter of recognition by the State Government. We reiterate, there is no such institution in appeal before us. 29. We again have to notice that the RTE Act and the provisions therein apply only to elementary education, to consider whether minority and non-minority schools require recognition of the State. We also have to pertinently observe that the mere fact that some institution or individuals from the minority community, are providing elementary education in backward areas for students, of their community, from the marginalized sections of society, cannot be a reason to assume that these students would not proceed further than, elementary education. Hence, what is required in providing elementary education is to equip them for the Secondary, Higher Secondary and University streams of education. A system of education which does not enable the students to get themselves admitted to Secondary or Higher Secondary education cannot at all be encouraged. We have to consider such situations or aspects separately and we would first look at the contention raised of the non-minority institutions not requiring recognition for conduct of elementary schools, for completeness, despite no such institution having filed an appeal. 30. Secondary and Higher Secondary education, is absolutely necessary to enable a student to move on to an University. We have to consider such situations or aspects separately and we would first look at the contention raised of the non-minority institutions not requiring recognition for conduct of elementary schools, for completeness, despite no such institution having filed an appeal. 30. Secondary and Higher Secondary education, is absolutely necessary to enable a student to move on to an University. The Secondary and Higher Secondary examinations and evaluation have to be by the recognized Boards, either at the State level or the National level. In seeking an affiliation with either of such Boards, definitely the affiliation norms has also to be complied with. As far as elementary education by a non-minority institution, the RTE Act applies squarely. We look at Section 29 of the Act, under Chapter V, which speaks of "Curriculum and Completion of Elementary Education". Section 29(1) provides that curriculum and evaluation procedure for elementary education shall be laid down by an academic authority to be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification. It is admitted that the appropriate Government has prescribed SCERT as the academic authority, under Rule 20 of the Rules of 2011. The schools affiliated to a Board of Examinations recognized for the purpose of conducting Secondary and Higher Secondary examinations; enabling further University education, follows a recognized curriculum and evaluation procedure. If an elementary school does not follow such curriculum and evaluation procedure, the students studying therein cannot proceed further to the Secondary or Higher Secondary level as also aspire to the University stream. We, hence, find the recognition and affiliation to be necessary for establishment of an elementary school by a non-minority institution, the recognition being granted by the State Government under the RTE Act and the affiliation by the respective Boards as per the terms and conditions in their Regulations. As we noticed hereinabove when such recognition has been granted on the basis of the affiliation norms a NOC by the State Government is automatic. We also have to provide a caveat in so far as the affiliation being at the discretion of the respective Boards; despite a recognition granted and NOC issued by the State Government. 31. On the question of minority institutions, the issue stands covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court above referred and for carrying on elementary education, they require no recognition under the RTE Act. 31. On the question of minority institutions, the issue stands covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court above referred and for carrying on elementary education, they require no recognition under the RTE Act. We can only make a reservation insofar as the minority institutions stand alone with elementary education or also admitting students to Secondary and Higher Secondary level, necessarily requires an affiliation from either of the recognized Boards of Secondary and Higher Secondary examinations, without which the students passing out from the 8th standard would otherwise be deprived of the Secondary and Higher Secondary education and would also be, not admitted to the University stream. Hence, despite the application of the RTE Act being excluded, recognition would have to be obtained as per the Regulations of the Board of Examinations under which they seek affiliation. If there is a prescription for recognition as is found in the affiliation norms of the CBSE, necessarily the minority institutions would have to obtain that in accordance with such terms and conditions as stipulated for affiliation. 32. It is also an admitted fact that the minority institutions carrying on Secondary and Higher Secondary education, have been complying with such terms and conditions of affiliation even prior to the RTE Act. The promulgation of the RTE Act and the statutory mandate of recognition brought in, which has been held to be not applicable to minority institutions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot lead to the norms of affiliation being rendered nugatory with respect to the minority institutions; which they were obliged to follow even earlier. In this context we notice the decision of Constitutional Bench, comprised of six learned Judges, in Sidhrajbhai v. State of Gujarat [1963(3)SCR 837]. 33. In Sidhrajbhai the rules framed by the Government for reservation of seats, under orders of Government upto 80% and the threat to withhold grant-in-aid and recognition on failure to concede, were held to infringe the fundamental freedom guaranteed to a minority institution under Article 30(1). But the following extracts are apposite: "10. ... All minorities, linguistic or religious have by Article 30 (1) an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; and any law or executive direction which seeks to infringe the substance of that right under Article 30 (1) would to that extent be void. But the following extracts are apposite: "10. ... All minorities, linguistic or religious have by Article 30 (1) an absolute right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; and any law or executive direction which seeks to infringe the substance of that right under Article 30 (1) would to that extent be void. This, however, is not to say that it is not open to the State to impose regulations upon the exercise of this right. The fundamental freedom is to establish and to administer educational institutions: it is a right to establish and administer what are in truth educational institutions-institutions which cater to the educational needs of the citizens, or sections thereof. Regulation made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed. Such regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right which is guaranteed: they secure the proper functioning of the institutions, in matters educational. xxx xxx xxx 15. The right established by Article 30(1) is a fundamental right declared in terms absolute. Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 it is not subject to reasonable restrictions. It is intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in the matter of setting up of educational institutions of their own choice. The right is intended to be effective and is not to be whittled down by so-called regulative measures conceived in the interest not of the minority educational institution, but of the public or the nation as a whole. If every order which while maintaining the formal character of a minority institution destroys the power of administration is held justifiable because it is in the public or national interest, though not in its interest as an educational institution the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) will be but a “teasing illusion” a promise of unreality. Regulations which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution effective as an educational institution. Regulations which may lawfully be imposed either by legislative or executive action as a condition of receiving grant or of recognition must be directed to making the institution while retaining its character as a minority institution effective as an educational institution. Such regulation must satisfy a dual test-the test of reasonableness, and the test that it is regulative of the educational character of the institution and is conducive to making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it". 34. Sidhrajbhai also copiously referred to Kerala Education Bill, 1957, In re: 1959 SCR 995 , and the now famous quote that “the right to administer did not include a right to maladminister, and the minority could not ask for aid or recognition for an educational institution run by them in unhealthy surroundings, without any competent teachers possessing any semblance of qualification, and which did not maintain even a fair standard of teaching or which taught matters subversive of the welfare of the scholars”. 35. Apposite also would be reference to the following paragraphs from State of Kerala v. Very Reverend Mother Provincial [ (1970) 2 SCC 417 ]; another Constitution Bench of co-equal strength: "9. The next part of the right relates to the administration of such institutions. Administration means “management of the affairs” of the institution. This management must be free of control so that the founders or their nominees can mould the institution as they think fit, and in accordance with their ideas of how the interests of the community in general and the institution in particular will be best served. No part of this management can be taken away and vested in another body without an encroachment upon the guaranteed right. 10. There is, however, an exception to this and it is that the standards of education are not a part of management as such. These standards concern the body politic and are dictated by considerations of the advancement of the country and its people. Therefore, if universities establish the syllabi for examinations they must be followed, subject however to special subjects which the institutions may seek to teach, and to a certain extent the State may also regulate the conditions of employment of teachers and the health and hygiene of students. Such regulations do not bear directly upon management as such although they may indirectly affect it. Such regulations do not bear directly upon management as such although they may indirectly affect it. Yet the right of the State to regulate education, educational standards and allied matters cannot be denied. The minority institutions cannot be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions, or under the guise of exclusive right of management, to decline to follow the general pattern. While the management must be left to them, they may be compelled to keep in step with others. These propositions have been firmly established in State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society (1955) 1 SCR 568 , State of Madras v. S.C. Dorairajan (1951) SCR 525, In re the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, 1959 SCR 995 , Sidharajbhai v. State of Gujarat (1963) 3 SCR 837 , Katra Education Society v. State of U.P. (1966) 3 SCR 828, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar (1963) Suppl 1 SCR 112 and Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar (1969) 2 SCR 73 . In the last case it was said that the right need not be enlarged nor whittled down. The Constitution speaks of administration and that must fairly be left to the minority institutions and no more. Applying these principles we now consider the provisions of the Act". We would also, in this context, refer to paragraph 139 of T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ], which we extract hereunder: “139. Like any other private unaided institutions, similar unaided educational institutions administered by linguistic or religious minorities are assured maximum autonomy in relation thereto; e.g. method of recruitment of teachers, charging of fees and admission of students. They will have to comply with the conditions of recognition, which cannot be such as to whittle down the right under Article 30”. (underlining by us for emphasis) If the conditions of recognition apply even to unaided private minority institutions, definitely it applies to aided private minority institutions. 36. Hence, it is not as if the State cannot impose any conditions for recognition of a minority institution. Here the State has insisted only for following the norms and regulations of the affiliating Boards. The Boards of Examinations like the CBSE, ICSE and even the State Board has prescribed the essential conditions of affiliation only with the intention of making the affiliated schools better and effective vehicles of education. Here the State has insisted only for following the norms and regulations of the affiliating Boards. The Boards of Examinations like the CBSE, ICSE and even the State Board has prescribed the essential conditions of affiliation only with the intention of making the affiliated schools better and effective vehicles of education. It is imperative that the minority institutions also follow the general accepted patterns of education prevalent in the country. They cannot be permitted to have their own syllabi or a syllabi of an unrecognized examination body/board which would frustrate the aspiration of a student for higher education. A minority institution cannot be heard to proclaim that it would provide an education to the students, at least or even to those sourced from that community, which, even if not generally accepted or enabling higher studies, would according to the tenets of that community equip the students to a better life. The State in such circumstances definitely has the authority to step in and bring the institution to the mainstream of the educational system followed within it territories, which is in public interest. Though we hold, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the RTE Act is not applicable to minority institutions, we, nevertheless find such minority institutions also to be necessarily affiliated under recognized Boards of Examination, even if any such institution imparts only elementary education. Otherwise, the vision behind providing for free and compulsory elementary education would be defeated and the aspirations to proceed for higher education stand frustrated; of the students studying in un-affiliated schools. 37. W.A.No.521 of 2019 is by a non-minority institution, where the learned Senior Counsel Sri.R.D.Shenoi has a contention with respect to Section 19 of the RTE Act. According to him, with respect to a school established before the commencement of the Act, the mandate is only to take steps, to fulfil the norms and standards specified in the Schedule, within a period of three years from the date of commencement of the Act. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent-institution has commenced the steps; but, however, the same is not completed, which enables the continuance of the school. We need only look at Section 18(3) to summarily reject the above contention. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent-institution has commenced the steps; but, however, the same is not completed, which enables the continuance of the school. We need only look at Section 18(3) to summarily reject the above contention. When a school fails to fulfil the norms and standards within the period prescribed under sub-section (2), the authority prescribed under sub-section (1) is required, under sub-section (3), to withdraw the recognition granted to the school. 38. We, hence, dispose of all the appeals in the following manner: (i) The appeals of the State, challenging the finding of the learned Single Judge that educational need or saturation of the same cannot be a reason to reject the application for recognition, are rejected upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge. (ii) We find the order in review to be incompetent to upset the judgment in the Writ Petitions and as a result, the guidelines produced in the review is of no consequence. (iii) We uphold the stand of the Government, taken at this appellate stage, of considering recognition under the RTE Act by verifying the compliance of the Schedule under the Act and the affiliation norms of Secondary and Higher Secondary Examination Boards. We, however, leave open the challenge to the Government Orders G.O.(Ms) No.22/2019/GEDN dated 01.03.2019 and G.O.(Ms) No.45/2019/GEDN dated 22.05.2019, subject to our above finding. (iv) The minority institutions carrying on elementary education are saved from the application of the RTE Act, 2009. But even they have to get affiliations from recognized Boards of Examinations and comply with the terms of the affiliating body/board. If recognition of the State is prescribed by that body/board; it has to be obtained, in the terms above declared. The minority institutions too thus have to be affiliated to one recognized Board or another, lest otherwise it would be no “effective vehicle of education” (sic Sidhrajbhai - para 15). (v). The State in considering recognition either under the RTE Act and as stipulated by the affiliating board/body is competent to look into the norms and conditions of affiliation as prescribed by the affiliating board/body and when so satisfied as to the grant of recognition, shall also issue a NOC as required. (vi). (v). The State in considering recognition either under the RTE Act and as stipulated by the affiliating board/body is competent to look into the norms and conditions of affiliation as prescribed by the affiliating board/body and when so satisfied as to the grant of recognition, shall also issue a NOC as required. (vi). The State can prescribe such further conditions under the RTE Act, which are not onerous, impractical or arbitrary; without diluting the Schedule under Section 19, in public interest, the grievance against which are to be individually tested, on the anvil of reasonableness. (vii) The non-minority institutions even if confined to elementary education, are required to comply with the provisions of the RTE Act. 39. On the above findings, the appellants in W.A.No.2051 of 2018, who are minority institutions are entitled to seek for the appeal to be allowed. All the petitioners, minority institutions, have been affiliated even prior to the commencement of the RTE Act, which affiliation is continued. There can be no closing down of such schools, since the requirement for a recognition under the RTE Act, does not apply to minority institutions. W.A.No.2051 of 2018, hence, stands allowed. The Writ Appeals of the State are rejected. Those of the individual parties are disposed of with the above declarations and directions. The interlocutory applications filed in these appeals, which are pending, seeking acceptance of documents are allowed. All other pending interlocutory applications are closed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.