JUDGMENT : Manju Rani Chauhan, J. 1. Nobody is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 even in the revised reading of the list. 2. Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Since the pleadings have been exchanged between the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, who are the contesting respondents, both the parties agree that the present writ petition may be decided at this stage without calling for any further affidavits, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed today. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 23/24th May, 2018 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Lucknow i.e. respondent No. 4 herein. They have further prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for taking the institution into grant-in-aid list since December, 2006 by ignoring the Government Order dated 13th July, 2017 and also to make payment of salary to the teachers and other employees working in the institution under the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 including the arrears of salary since 2006 as well as current salary as and when it comes due. 5. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The petitioner-institution is a recognized Junior High School and pursuant to Government policy embodied in the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, it applied for the benefit of grant-in-aid from the State Exchequer. The cases of all the applicants were to be considered as per the prescriptions available in the said Government Order dated 7.9.2006 and final list of the institutions brought under grant-in-aid list was published on 2.12.2006. The petitioner-institution was, however, denied the said benefit and its name did not figure in the said list finalized by the State Government on 2.12.2006, which led the petitioner-institution to institute a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 2.2.2009. The petitioner-institution was, however, denied the said benefit and its name did not figure in the said list finalized by the State Government on 2.12.2006, which led the petitioner-institution to institute a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 2.2.2009. Challenging the said order dated 2.2.2009, the petitioner filed a Special Appeal which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, vide its judgment and order dated 17.3.2009 permitting the petitioner-institution to file an appropriate application before the State Level Committee and it was further directed that in case such an application is filed, the appropriate authority shall pass appropriate order after examining the facts of the case and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is in compliance of this order dated 17.3.2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Court that the impugned order dated 5.7.2009 has been passed by the Director of Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow. For the purposes of bringing 1000 unaided Junior High Schools having permanent recognition on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government, a Government Order was issued on 7.9.2006, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. In the said Government Order dated 7.9.2006, a detailed procedure was prescribed for the purpose of consideration of the cases of the Junior High Schools for giving them the benefit of grant-in-aid. The conditions mentioned in the said Government Order for Junior High Schools seeking the benefit of grant-in-aid were that the institution concerned should have permanent recognition, the Society running the institution should be registered, whose registration should be renewed and the institution should have student strength in Classes 6, 7 and 8 in last three years, as on 30.9.2006, not less than 105. Certain other conditions were also prescribed in the said Government Order and the conditions were that the finances of the institution should be managed as per rules, that institution should have the building of its own, that management of the institution should pass a resolution that in case the institution is taken on grant-in-aid list, it shall abide by the terms and conditions of the grant, that there should not be any dispute in the management and that in case the institution is brought in grant-in-aid list such institution shall be required to fulfill the aforesaid eligibility conditions even in future. Three committees were also constituted for the purposes of processing the applications for grant of benefit of grant-in-aid. The first such Committee was constituted at the directorate level comprising of various members and the Director of Basic Education/Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad was to be its chairperson. The second Committee constituted was a Committee at the Regional Level to be chaired by the Assistant Regional Director of Basic Education. The said Regional Level Committee also comprised of various officers and was headed by the Assistant Regional Director of Basic Education. The third Committee was headed by the District Basic Education Officer which was known as District Level Committee. The Government Order dated 7.9.2006 further provided a schedule/time table for the purpose of making selection of the institutions for being extended the benefit of grant-in-aid, according to which, Directorate of Basic Education was required to publish a Notification and advertisement till 10.9.2006. The last date for making applications before the District Basic Education Officer was 3.10.2006. By 20.10.2006, an inspection team consisting of District Basic Education Officer, Deputy Basic Education Officer and two senior-most Assistant Basic Education Officers was required to conduct the spot inspection and accordingly thereafter the proposals were to be submitted for scrutiny before the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee was required to scrutinize the proposals till 1.11.2006. The Regional Level Committee was also required to intimate the deficiencies found while examining the proposals received from the institutions. The institutions in whose cases deficiencies were intimated, were required to make their representation by 10.11.2006 removing the deficiencies and thereafter Regional Level Committee was required to finalize the list and send the same to the Directorate Level Committee by 15.11.2006. The Directorate Level Committee was to consider all the proposals received by it in the meeting to be convened on 20.11.2006 and thereafter the matter was to be referred for final decision to the State Government. The petitioner-institution submitted its application in terms of the Government Order dated 7.9.2006 for consideration of its case for being brought on grant-in-aid list. However, it appears that a letter dated 1.11.2006, on consideration of the proposal by the Regional Level Committee, was written by the Assistant Regional Director of Basic Education, Allahabad pointing out certain deficiencies in the proposal of the petitioner-institution including the deficiency that there is some dispute in the management of the institution. However, it appears that a letter dated 1.11.2006, on consideration of the proposal by the Regional Level Committee, was written by the Assistant Regional Director of Basic Education, Allahabad pointing out certain deficiencies in the proposal of the petitioner-institution including the deficiency that there is some dispute in the management of the institution. In response to the said letter dated 1.11.2006, a reply dated 10.11.2006 is said to have been submitted by the petitioner-institution on 13.11.2006, though the last date for receipt of the representation from the applicants-institutions for removal of the deficiencies was 10.11.2006 as prescribed in the Government Order dated 7.9.2006. However, when final list of the institution brought on grant-in-aid list was published on 7.12.2006 and the petitioner-institution did not figure in the said list, the petitioner-institution filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed on 2.9.2009 by Hon'ble Single Judge and thereafter in the Special Appeal preferred by the petitioner-institution, namely, Special Appeal No. 352 of 2009, certain directions were issued permitting the petitioner-institution to file appropriate application before the State Level Committee which was to be examined and decided by the competent authority. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, on 2nd April, 2009, the petitioners have made representation before the competent authority i.e. Director of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow. However, the Director of Education (Basic) has rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 5th July, 2009, nearly on the same grounds. Perusal of the order dated 5th July, 2009 reveals that the first ground, which had been mentioned by the Director of Education (Basic) for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, was that the last date for submission of the application form provided under Government order dated 7th September, 2006 before the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi was 3rd October, 2006 and on which date, there was a dispute between two groups of management of the petitioners' institution and both these rival groups had submitted two different management returns. Second ground mentioned in the order dated 5th July, 2009 was that the petitioners' institution was required to remove the deficiencies by 10th November, 2006. Second ground mentioned in the order dated 5th July, 2009 was that the petitioners' institution was required to remove the deficiencies by 10th November, 2006. However, by the last date, the petitioners' institution failed to submit their representation intimating the removal of deficiencies, which were pointed out by the Regional Level Committee in its communication letter dated 1st November, 2006, when as a matter of fact the representation in that regard was made on 13th November, 2006. The other ground mentioned in the order dated 5th July, 2009 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner was that on the last date of submission of the application form to be precise on 3rd October, 2006, the registration of the society of the petitioners' institution was not renewed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of Writ (C) No. 44345 of 2009 (C/M Sri Satya Narain Junior High School and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others) and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11th October, 20017, while allowing the said writ petitioner, quashed the order dated 5th July, 2009 and remitted the matter back before the Director of Education (Basic) to consider and decide claim of the petitioners' institution afresh in light of the observations made in the judgment and order dated 11th October, 2017 itself. However, the Coordinate Bench while passing the judgment and order dated 11th October, 2017, has given liberty to the Director of Education (Basic) to call for reports, material and other documents as may be necessary from the District Level Education Authorities, while considering the claim of the petitioner. 7. Thereafter the petitioners' institution have made a representation dated 24th October, 2017 before respondent No. 2 i.e. Director of Education (Basic) alongwith a copy of the judgment and order dated 11th October, 2017 for taking appropriate decision. 8. Respondent No. 2-Director of Education (Basic), has again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 23/24th May, 2018 on the ground that under the Government Order 30th July, 2017, the State Government has taken a new policy decision and in view of the said policy decision, the petitioners' institution cannot be recommended to the State Government for taking the same into grant-in-aid list. It is against this order dated 23/24th May, 2018 that the present writ petition has been filed. 9. It is against this order dated 23/24th May, 2018 that the present writ petition has been filed. 9. In the order impugned dated 23/24th May, 2018, the other grounds mentioned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners' institution, are the same, as were mentioned in the judgment and order of the Coordinate Bench dated 11th October, 2017 passed in Writ (C) No. 44345 of 2009. 10. Challenging the impugned order dated 23/24th May, 2018, following arguments have been advanced by Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners: (i) The order dated 23/24th May, 2018 is patently erroneous, illegal and arbitrary; (ii) The Policy Decision taken by the State Government under the Government Order dated 13th July, 2017 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners' institution, as the petitioners' institution had applied for taking the institution into grant-in-aid list from the very beginning i.e. in the year 2006 itself and aforesaid policy decision was taken in the year 2017, therefore, any policy decision taken by the State Government or any Government Order issued by the State Government is given effect prospectively and not retrospectively; (iii) Two different Coordinate Benches of this Court vide judgment and orders dated 27th September, 2019 and 23rd May, 2019 passed in Writ (C) No. 4735 of 2017 (Committee of Management of Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre-Secondary School and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others) and Writ (C) No. 38992 of 2017 and Writ Appeal No. 38992 of 2017 (Jai Ram Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) alongwith connected petitions respectively, have set aside the Government Order dated 13th July, 2017, therefore, the same has no relevance at present; (iv) The petitioners' institution initially granted temporary recognition and thereafter after completing the requisite formalities, the institution has been granted permanent recognition in the year 1986, furthermore, in pursuance of the Government Order dated 7th September, 2006, the petitioners' institution has fulfilled all requirements and also they are pursuing their claim since 2006 for taking the petitioners' institution into grant-in-aid list. Initially, the petitioners have approached this Court earlier by means of a writ petition, which was dismissed and against the order of dismissal, the petitioners have preferred Special Appeal before the appellate Court. In the said Special Appeal, the appellate Court has directed that claim of the petitioners be considered by a State Level Committee. Initially, the petitioners have approached this Court earlier by means of a writ petition, which was dismissed and against the order of dismissal, the petitioners have preferred Special Appeal before the appellate Court. In the said Special Appeal, the appellate Court has directed that claim of the petitioners be considered by a State Level Committee. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the petitioners have represented their claim and on the same ground, the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow has rejected their claim vide order dated 5.7.2009 against which the petitioners have approached the Writ Court again by filing Writ (C) No. 44345 of 2009, wherein the order of the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow was set aside and matter was remitted back before him to decide the same afresh. However, the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow has passed impugned order dated 23/24.5.2018 by recording that now the State Government has taken a policy decision vide Government Order dated 13.7.2017 and against the said policy decision institution in question cannot be recommended to the State Government for putting the same into grant-in aid list, therefore, order impugned passed by the Respondent No. 2 is without the application of mind and also not sustainable in the eyes of law; (v) On the similar facts and circumstances, a writ petition bearing Writ (C) No. 17883 of 2008 (Committee of Management Mohan Lal Adarsh Purva M.V. Salempur vs. State of U.P. and Others), was also filed before a Writ Court, in which the Writ Court was pleased to pass judgment and order dated 3.11.2017 and in pursuance of the aforesaid order, now as per information of the petitioners, the Authority concerned has passed order dated 6.6.2018 taking the aforesaid petitioners' institution into grant-in-aid list. Therefore, when the case of the petitioners' institution is similar to that of the said institution, the order impugned rejecting claim of the Petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law and also discriminatory in nature; (vi) From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparently clear that the petitioners have submitted requisite forms on a prescribed format by means of the letter dated 3.10.2006, whereas, another person, namely, Shashi Bhushan Dwivedi has also submitted the form before the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi, therefore, there is no question that form has not been submitted within time, though, it was submitted by two persons claiming to be rival Committee of Management; (vii) The dispute of the Committee of Management of the petitioners' institution has already been decided by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad vide order dated 4.11.2006 and it was decided in favour of the Petitioners' side. The Writ Court in its judgment and order dated 11th October, 2017 referred to above, while setting aside the earlier order of the Director of Education (Basic) dated 5th July, 2009, has opined that on passing of the order of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad dated 4th November, 2006, there is no difficulty for conclusively holding that as on 10th November, 2006, there was no dispute in respect of the Committee of Management. Alongwith aforesaid order as well as certificate of renewal of the Committee of Management, the Petitioners have submitted a detailed reply to the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi on 10.11.2006, who inturn has assured that he will give receiving on the same date but by 4 o'clock, he has refused to receive the documents and also said that he will not provide receiving of the same. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the petitioners to submit necessary reply in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi, as required in the objections; (viii) Just after 4 o'clock, on 10th November, 2006, Mr. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of the petitioners to submit necessary reply in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi, as required in the objections; (viii) Just after 4 o'clock, on 10th November, 2006, Mr. Ambika Prasad Tripathi, being Manager of the Committee of Management, reached the office of Assistant Director of Education (Basic), IVth Regional, Allahabad at 5.30 p.m. from the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi but the said office was closed and on the next day i.e. 11th November, 2006, there was holiday due to Second Saturday and again on the next day i.e. 12.11.2006, there was holiday due to Sunday, thereafter the petitioners have served all documents, as per the objection, in the office of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) 4th Region, Allahabad on 13.11.2006; (ix) From perusal of the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, it is clear that the objection has to be decided by a Committee headed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) 4th Region, Allahabad at the Regional Level on 15th November, 2006, therefore, in all probability, the objection has strictly been placed in the office of Assistant Director of Education (Basic) 4th Region, Allahabad on 13.11.2006, which has been admitted by the Director of Education (Basic) himself, therefore, all formalities, as required in the objection, have been completed by the petitioners and objections have already been removed on or before 15th November, 2006; (x) Since the then District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi, namely, Ashok Nath Tiwari, was under pressure of Mr. Shashi Bhushan Dwivedi, who has highly political relations, as one of his brothers is a Member and Vice President of All India Congress Committee, U.P., therefore, he has not received the application forms of the petitioners' institution alongwith other documents removing the deficiencies pointed out in the objection, on 10.11.2006 by 4 o'clock. Shashi Bhushan Dwivedi, who has highly political relations, as one of his brothers is a Member and Vice President of All India Congress Committee, U.P., therefore, he has not received the application forms of the petitioners' institution alongwith other documents removing the deficiencies pointed out in the objection, on 10.11.2006 by 4 o'clock. Therefore, the petitioner had no fault in submitting the aforesaid document by 10th November, 2006; (xi) The Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow has passed the impugned order dated 23/24th May, 2018 almost on the same lines and grounds, as on the basis of which earlier order dated 5th July, 2009 was passed and the Writ Court, while setting aside the order dated 5th July, 2009, has directed the Director of Education (Basic) to reconsider the claim of the petitioners' institution afresh in light of the observations made in the said judgment, as several institutions, which have been recognized later on, have been taken into grant-in-aid list, therefore, not taking the petitioners' institution into grant-in-aid list, is absolutely arbitrary and in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned dated 23/24th May, 2018 be set aside and the Director of Education (Basic) be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners afresh for taking the petitioners' institution in the grant-in-aid list within stipulated period fixed by this Court. 11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel makes following submissions: (a) The order impugned is legal and valid, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (b) It is not in dispute that the petitioners' society, namely, Sri Satya Narain Junior High School Marhi, Post Office-Dhuksha, Allahabad is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said society was renewed on 3rd November, 2005 for a period of five years and thereafter it could not be renewed. On 4th March, 2006, the renewal fees had been deposited in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Allahapur, Allahabad. The said society was renewed on 3rd November, 2005 for a period of five years and thereafter it could not be renewed. On 4th March, 2006, the renewal fees had been deposited in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Allahapur, Allahabad. In the meantime, by showing the resignation of Ambika Prasad Tripathi, Shashibhushan Dwivedi had deposited the fees for renewal of the said society in the office of Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits due to which a dispute was arisen after which Ambika Prasad Tripathi, for his renewal of the society, filed Writ Petition No. 54919 of 20016 before the Writ Court and the Writ Court vide order dated 1st October, 2006 directed to Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits to decide the matter. The Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 4th November, 2006 in favour of Ambika Prasad Tripathi. Against the order dated 4th November, 2006, Shashibhushan Dwivedi filed Writ Petition No. 64232 of 2006, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 26th February, 2013; (c) The State Government issued a Government Order dated 7th September, 2006 for taking the non-Government permanent aided institutions into grant-in-aid list. In the said Government Order, procedure as well as terms and conditions have also been determined; (d) The Committee of Management of the said society made available two Manager Returns (M.R.) applications on 3rd October, 2006, on one application, Ambika Prasad Tripathi has put his signature under the capacity of Manager, whereas on the second application, Shahshibhuhsan Dwivedi has put in signatures under the capacity of Manager of the ''Committee of Management of the said society. Since the entries on both the manager returns were different, the Committee of Management of the said society was disputed; (e) Apart from the above, on the application submitted by the Committee of Management of the said society for taking the petitioners' institution in grant-in-aid list, the Divisional Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad vide his letter dated 1st November, 2006 informed the Manager and Principal of the petitioners' institution that for taking the institution in grant-in-aid list, following conditions have not been fulfilled: (I) There is management dispute in the institution; (II) The teaching rooms of the said institution were less than that prescribed under the norms; (III) The necessary information/records about of the students and the account of the institution were not enclosed. In the said letter dated 1st November, 2006, it has also been directed that the Manager and the Principal of the institution shall also ensure that a representation alongwith the copies of relevant records of removing the aforesaid deficiencies is made available in the office of the Divisional Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad by 10th November, 2006 through the office of the District Basic Education Officer. By the said letter it has also been informed that upto 10th November, 2006, if the representation is not received, then it may be presumed that they did not want to say anything in that regard and further proceedings may be ensured in the concerned matter. As per the said letter, the petitioner upto said fixed date, had not made available the representation alongwith the necessary documents qua removal the deficiencies in the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi nor he could submit any document on the basis of which it could be said that he had removed the deficiencies as pointed in the letter of the Divisional Director; (f) As per the Government Order dated 7th September, 2006, the papers/documents must be received in the office of District Basic Education Officer upto 10th November, 2006 but the petitioner did not submit his representation after removing deficiencies to the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi upto 10th November, 2006. It was not required to sent the papers directly to the office of Director of Education (Basic); (g) Against the order dated 4th November, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits directing renewal of the Committee of Management headed by Ambika Prasad Tripathi, Shashi Bhushan Dwivedi filed Writ Petition No. 64232 of 2006 and the same was dismissed in default on 26th February, 2013 from which it is clear that the dispute of the Committee of Management of the petitioners' society was pending upto 26th February, 2013; (h) Alongwith the application for taking the petitioners' institution in the grant-in-aid list, they have not disclosed about the roofs of the teaching rooms of the institution as to which have been constructed by Tinshed or cemented linter and because of the same, the Division Assistant Director of Education (Basic) has raised objection in his letter dated 1st November, 2006 addressed to the Manager and Principal of the petitioners' institution; (i) Since the institution had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of Government Order dated 7th September, 2006 as well as there was managerial dispute in the committee of management, the institution was not taken in the grant-in-aid list and information in that regard has already been issued to the petitioners by the Divisional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) vide letter dated 8th January, 2007; (j) In compliance of the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 11th October, 2017 the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow by his order dated 24th May, 2018 had afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and decided the matter in accordance with law while passing the order impugned. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned Standing Counsel submits that all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are incorrect and not tenable in the eyes of law, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the present writ petition is liable to be rejected. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire records available before this Court. 13. Hence the present writ petition is liable to be rejected. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire records available before this Court. 13. This Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the policy decision taken by the State Government under the Government Order dated 13th July, 2017 is not applicable to the case of the petitioners' institution, as the petitioners' institution had applied for taking the institution into grant-in-aid list from the very beginning i.e. in the year 2006 itself and the aforesaid policy decision was taken in the year 2017, therefore, any policy decision taken by the State Government or any Government Order issued by the State Government is given effect prospectively and not retrospectively. Any Government decision or order will have prospective effect and not retrospective effect. The same will have effect with effect from its date of enforcement/issuance not before the said date. 14. The Apex Court in its latest judgment in the case of Union of India and Others vs. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 209 , has opined that a rule framed by the delegate of the legislature does not have retrospective effect unless the statutory provision, under which it is framed, allows it so, either by the use of specific words to that effect or by necessary implication. The Apex Court has further opined that the Central Government or the State Government (for any other authority) cannot make a subordinate legislation having retrospective effect unless the parent statute, expressly or by necessary implications, authorities it do so. For ready reference, paragraph Nos. 104 and 106 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows: ''104. A rule framed by the delegate of the legislature does not have retrospective effect unless the statutory provision under which it is framed allows retrospectivity either by the use of specific words to that effect or by necessary implication. In Hukum Chand vs. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 601 , a three judge Bench of this Court held that: ''8...The extent and amplitude of the rule-making power would depend upon and be governed by the language of the section. In Hukum Chand vs. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 601 , a three judge Bench of this Court held that: ''8...The extent and amplitude of the rule-making power would depend upon and be governed by the language of the section. If a particular rule were not to fall within the ambit and purview of the section, the Central Government in such an event would have no power to make that rule. Likewise, if there was nothing in the language of Section 40 to empower the Central Government either expressly or by necessary implication, to make a rule retroactively, the Central Government would be acting in excess of its power if it gave retrospective effect to any rule. The underlying principle is that unlike Sovereign Legislature which has power to enact laws with retrospective operation, authority vested with the power of making subordinate legislation has to act within the limits of its power and cannot transgress the same. The initial difference between subordinate legislation and the statute laws lies in the fact that a subordinate law-making body is bound by the terms of its delegated or derived authority and that Court of law, as a general rule, will not give effect to the rules, thus made, unless satisfied that all the conditions precedent to the validity of the rules have been fulfilled.'' (Emphasis supplied) 106. In Federation of Indian Minerals Industries vs. Union of India, a three judge Bench of this Court formulated the principles on the subject. Justice Madan B. Lokur observed that the power to frame subordinate legislation is not retrospective unless it is authorized expressly or by necessary implication by the parent statute. The Court observed: ''26...The relevant principles are: (i) The Central Government or the State Government (or any other authority) cannot make a subordinate legislation having retrospective effect unless the parent statute, expressly or by necessary implication, authorises it to do so. [Hukam Chand vs. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 601 and Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 620 ]. (ii) Delegated legislation is ordinarily prospective in nature and a right or a liability created for the first time cannot be given retrospective effect. [Hukam Chand vs. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 601 and Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 620 ]. (ii) Delegated legislation is ordinarily prospective in nature and a right or a liability created for the first time cannot be given retrospective effect. [Panchi Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 589 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 408] (iii) As regards a subordinate legislation concerning a fiscal statute, it would not be proper to hold that in the absence of an express provision a delegated authority can impose a tax or a fee. There is no scope or any room for intendment in respect of a compulsory exaction from a citizen. [Ahmedabad Urban Dev. Authority vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla, 1992) 3 SCC 285 and State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd. (2013) 15 SCC 1 ]'' The judgment of Justice Dipak Misra (as he then was) speaking for a two judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Agrotech (India) Ltd. (2013) 15 SCC 1 , adopts the same position.'' 15. This Court also finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date, when the petitioners' institution have made application for taking the institution in the grant-in-aid list as per the Government Order dated 7th September, 2006 between September, 2006 to November, 2006 and thereafter, there is no managerial dispute in the Committee of Management of the petitioners' institution as is evident from the observations made by the Writ Court in its judgment and order dated 11th October, 2017 passed in Writ (C) No. 44345 of 2009. For ready reference, the said observations made by the Writ Court read as follows: ''So far as the facts of this case are concerned, there is no dispute that the shadow of doubt in relation to there being any dispute in management was cleared only on 4.11.2006 when the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad passed an order for renewal of the registration of the Society on the basis of the papers presented by late Ambika Prasad Tripathi. However, on passing of the aforesaid order on 4.11.2006, there is no difficulty for conclusively holding that as on 10.11.2006, there was no dispute in respect of the management.'' 16. However, on passing of the aforesaid order on 4.11.2006, there is no difficulty for conclusively holding that as on 10.11.2006, there was no dispute in respect of the management.'' 16. The submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents that against the order dated 4th November, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Socialites and Chits directing renewal of the Committee of Management headed by Ambika Prasad Tripathi, Shashi Bhushan Dwivedi filed Writ Petition No. 64232 of 2006 and the same was dismissed in default on 26th February, 2013 from which it is clear that the dispute of the Committee of Management of the petitioners' society is pending upto 26th February, 2013 cannot be accepted by this Court on the ground that an interim order staying the effect and operation of the order dated 4th November, 2006 was passed in Writ Petition No. 64323 of 2006 and the same was in operation till 26th February, 2013 i.e. dismissal of the said writ petition in default, has not been brought on record nor the same has been shown to this Court. 17. This Court is disgruntled with the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents that since the petitioners' institution had made their representation alongwith the documents removing the deficiencies as pointed out by the Divisional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad in his letter dated 1st November, 2006, before the Divisional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad/Director of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow directly and not through the office of District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi, as is required under the Government Order dated 7th September, 2006, the claim of the petitioners' institution for taking the institution in grant-in-aid list could not be granted, is too technical in nature. For furtherance of interest of substantial justice, the representation alongwith the documents removing the deficiencies, made by the petitioners' institution for taking the institution in grant-in-aid list should have been considered. 18. It is settled law that all Courts of law are established for furtherance of interest of substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. In the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , wherein it has been held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. In the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , wherein it has been held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities (Reference Ghanshyam Dass and Others vs. Dominion of India and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 46 ). 19. This Court may also record that if the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the similar facts and circumstances, in compliance of the order of a Writ Court dated 3rd November, 2017 passed in Writ (C) No. 17883 of 2008 (Committee of Management Mohan Lal Adarsh Purva M.V. Salempur vs. State of U.P. and Others), the authority concerned has passed order dated 6.6.2018 taking the aforesaid petitioners' institution into grant-in-aid list, is correct, why the petitioners' institution could not be taken in the grant in-aid list by the respondents herein. 20. However, with respect to other deficiencies like teaching rooms and records of students, the same has been pointed out for the first time by means of the counter-affidavit and find no mention in the order impugned, hence the same cannot be pressed for justifying the impugned order. 21. However, it is made clear that the petitioners' institution cannot claim the right on the basis of other institutions, which have been included in the grant-in-aid list, if by 13th November, 2006 (as directed by Writ Court vide order dated 11th October, 2017), institution does not have infrastructure and students, as required by Government Order dated 3rd September, 2006. The Writ Court had relaxed the last date of submission of application form and also recorded that no managerial dispute existed, as on date of consideration, hence the order impugned is not justified on said grounds. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the observations made by this Court herein above as well as the observations made by the Writ Court vide order dated 11th October, 2017 referred to above, this Court finds that there is clear infirmity in the order impugned passed by the Director of Basic Education dated 23/24th May, 2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioners' institution for taking the institution grant-in-aid list. 23. 23. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow is, hereby quashed. The Director of Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner-institution afresh taking into consideration the observations made by this Court herein above, the observations made by the Writ Court vide order dated 11th October, 2017 in Writ Petition No. 44345 of 2009 and Government Order dated 7th September, 2006. While considering the claim of the petitioners' institution afresh, Director of Basic Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow, if he so desires and finds necessary, shall call for reports, records, material and any other documents from the district level education authorities as well as from management of the institution. It shall be open to the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow to see as to whether all conditions, as required under the Government Order dated 3rd September, 2006, have been fulfilled in the documents submitted on 13th November, 2006 (the date which have been relaxed by the Writ Court vide judgment and order dated 11th October, 2017). He shall pass a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 24. There shall be no order as to costs.