JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the appellants/schools and Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram for the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board. The State is represented by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, learned AC to AAG-15. 2. The appellants have challenged the order dated 07.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8469 of 2018, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the appellants for a direction to the authorities for inspection of the schools under the 1976 Rules has been rejected. 3. The only ground which has weighed with the court in rejecting the prayer of the appellants is that if admittedly the recognition was granted to these schools in 2007, it was during the currency and tenure of the 1993 Rules. 4. The learned single Judge has also gone through the provisions of the 1993 Rules and has found that one of the clauses of the Rules specify that all earlier rules in that regard stood superseded. 5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has very vehemently argued that the recognition to the schools in question were granted in the year 2007 with a specific disclosure of the Government that such recognition was without any financial assistance and under the 1976 Rules. He further submits that the requirement under the two Rules i.e. 1976 and 1993 Rules are diametrically different and some of the conditions under the 1993 Rules are more onerous so far as the infrastructure of the schools are concerned. Under the 1993 Rules, a school to have the recognition of the Board is required to possess a requisite area of land, which requirement was not there in 1976 Rules. 6. The appellants therefore, apprehend that if their schools are subjected to inspection under the 1993 Rules, perhaps they would lose their recognition and affiliation. 7. The aforesaid fear in the mind of the appellants is atavistic and cannot be redressed. Once it is admitted that the recognition of these schools were granted in the year 2007, which was during the currency and application of the 1993 Rules, that would bring unsurmountable difficulties for the institutions to press for dilution of the severity of the provisions of 1993 Rules. 8. Once it is admitted that the recognition of these schools were granted in the year 2007, which was during the currency and application of the 1993 Rules, that would bring unsurmountable difficulties for the institutions to press for dilution of the severity of the provisions of 1993 Rules. 8. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the Board that pursuant to the order passed by a Bench of this Court on 13.10.2017 in C.W.J.C. No. 2787 of 2017, such an inspection exercise has already begun at the level of the Government for which the appellants/schools were noticed. It was only after the receipt of such notice, which declared that such inspection would be made under the 1993 Rules, that the appellants chose to approach this Court for a direction for inspection under the 1976 Rules. 9. Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the Board submits that the writ petition otherwise also is premature as no inspection was completed and therefore, no sequel decision was taken. 10. The 1993 Rules being onerous in many respects provides many other premium to such schools, the main being the financial assistance from the Government. 11. The institutions cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. 12. If recognition is solicited as also the financial assistance, it would be incumbent upon such schools to upgrade themselves so far as the infrastructure is concerned. 13. Considering all these aspects, we do not find any fault with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 14. The petition is thus dismissed.