JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are working as H.S.T (Malayalam) and Lab Assistant respectively, in a Government aided Higher Secondary School at Peringathur, seeking to quash Ext.P4 communication of the Government dated 13.03.2013, clarifying that since aided school employees do not come under the purview of the Kerala Public Services Act, they cannot be treated as Government employees, and further to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the applications of the petitioners for selection of Haj Volunteers, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. According to the petitioners, their appointments have been approved and salary is disbursed by the Government of Kerala. They are Muslims by faith and have performed Haj/Umrah, and since they are working in aided school, their service being governed by the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, and their entire service benefits including salary are disbursed by the Government, they are qualified to be selected as Haj Volunteers (Khadim-ul-Hujjaj). 3. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 circular inviting applications for such volunteers from Muslim employees of Government/Public Sector Units/Statutory bodies for the year 2019. Petitioners who are aided school staff with approved service and allegedly qualified as per Ext.P1 notification, submitted Exts.P2 and P3 applications in the prescribed format along with the prescribed documents. But, their applications were not considered and were informed that, the 5th respondent consequent to Ext.P4 letter, had informed the 3rd respondent that, aided school employees do not come under the purview of Kerala Public Services Act and, they cannot be termed as 'Government Servants' for the purpose of deputing them as Haj Volunteers. Therefore, according to the petitioners, Ext.P4 is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. A statement is filed by the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Executive Officer, Kerala State Haj Committee, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. According to the 3rd respondent, as per Rule 9B Part-II KS&SSR dealing with deputation of employees, aided school employees do not come under the purview of Kerala Public Services Act and, therefore, they cannot be appointed on deputation basis. According to the 3rd respondent, as per Rule 9B Part-II KS&SSR dealing with deputation of employees, aided school employees do not come under the purview of Kerala Public Services Act and, therefore, they cannot be appointed on deputation basis. Though aided school employees are governed by Kerala Education Act and Rules, they are not appointed by the Government or an officer authorized by the Government; instead appointments are made by the respective managers of the aided schools concerned. That apart, it is pointed out that, in accordance with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.33619/2007 dated 14.03.2011, teachers of the aided school and those in Government service constitute two different classes, even though their duties and functions may be similar and qualification for both appointments are also similar. So also, in the method of appointment and other related matters, aided school teachers cannot be compared with a Government School teacher, and they constitute a homogeneous class, and therefore, the aided school teachers cannot be considered as Government employees. 5. So also, it is submitted that, 'Aided” private school which is recognized, and is receiving aid from the Government shall not include educational institutions entitled to receive grants under Article 337 of the Constitution of India. As per Clause 2(g) of Ext.P1 Circular, applications were called from Employees of Government/Public Sector Units/Statutory Bodies for nominating the Haj Volunteers, and the said circulars are issued by the 1st respondent every year, and Ext.P4 clarification letter was issued by the 5th respondent as a reply to one such Office Memorandum of the 4th respondent i.e., Union of India, on 15.01.2013. Before issuance of Ext.P4, employees from aided schools and temporary service from other Departments were also nominated as Volunteers. However, as per Annexure- R3(a), the Haj Committee of India had changed the norms for notifications as KuH. So also, in accordance with Ext.P1 notification, the volunteers can only be from members of Muslim employees of Government/Public Sector Units/Statutory Bodies. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, petitioners are not entitled to be appointed as Haj Volunteers. 6. The 4th respondent has also filed a statement, stating that the applications are forwarded by the State Government on the basis of the Circular issued by the Haj Committee of India for the year 2019. Annexure-R4(a) Circular was issued, prescribing the modalities for securing the applications and forwarding the same to the Haj Committee of India. 7. 6. The 4th respondent has also filed a statement, stating that the applications are forwarded by the State Government on the basis of the Circular issued by the Haj Committee of India for the year 2019. Annexure-R4(a) Circular was issued, prescribing the modalities for securing the applications and forwarding the same to the Haj Committee of India. 7. I have heard Sri. M.H. Asif Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Princy Xavier, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 5, and Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned ASGI appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 8. In my considered opinion, even though petitioners are employees of a Government aided school, they cannot be treated as 'Government employees', because their appointment is not made by the State Government, on the other hand, they are appointed by the manager of the school, to which Government is providing aid on the basis of the recognition/approval as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules. Moreover, as per the provisions of Rule 9B Part-II KS&SSR, the aided school employees do not come under the purview of the Kerala Public Services Act, and they cannot be appointed on deputation basis. There is no manner of role for the Government in the matter of regulating and controlling the employees of aided schools, and their disciplinary authority is the management. Merely because the Government officials function as appellate and revisional authorities, that by itself can never be treated as any power or authority exercised by the Government against the employees of aided schools, since, by discharging such functions, the authorities are only evaluating the correctness of the decision taken by the management. Merely because grant is provided by the Government to aided schools, the employees cannot be treated and termed as 'Government employees'. That apart, from Ext.P1 Circular issued by the Haj Committee of India, it is clear that the applicants must be employees of Government/Public Sector Units/Statutory Bodies, and in my opinion, aided teachers will not come under any of those categories. 9. That apart, from Ext.P1 Circular issued by the Haj Committee of India, it is clear that the applicants must be employees of Government/Public Sector Units/Statutory Bodies, and in my opinion, aided teachers will not come under any of those categories. 9. Even though petitioners have a case that they come under statutory bodies, such contention cannot be accepted since a statutory body is created under a statute, whereas in the case of aided schools, they are constituted by private managements and seeks approval of the Government, and the Government in accordance with the parameters provided under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, carry out the statutory duties, and then grant approval. Therefore, the duty discharged under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules is only for the purpose of recognition/approval, and thereafter provide aid for payment of salary etc. on the basis of the conditions prescribed under the aforesaid Act and Rules. Which thus means, Government aided school by itself is not a statutory body created under the Act and Rules, so as to secure advantage of Ext.P1 Circular. 10. The term 'statutory' is defined under the Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, to mean; “Of or relating to legislation, legislatively created, conformable to a statute” etc. Therefore, going by the language of the provisions of the Education Act and Rules, it can never be gathered that the Government aided schools have the trappings and characteristics of a statutory body, enabling the petitioners to make any claim on the basis of Ext.P1 notification. So much so, the structural frame work of the Act and Rules is intended only for the purpose of recognition/approval, and extend aid only, which action can never be termed as a statutory recognition given by the Government to the aided educational institutions. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners are entitled to submit applications in accordance with Ext.P1, in the sector of statutory bodies. 11. Taking into account all the above aspects, I am of the view that the clarification provided by the Government that, aided school teachers are not Government employees, cannot be said to be bad, arbitrary or illegal, justifying interference of this Court. Evaluating the factual and legal circumstances pointed out above, I do not think petitioners have made out a case justifying interference of this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Evaluating the factual and legal circumstances pointed out above, I do not think petitioners have made out a case justifying interference of this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.