AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. All these writ petitions assail the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 issued by the School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai to the extent of condition to grant permission to the additional divisions of the schools from the years 20142015 on non grant basis. The petitioners further seek relief that the same is required to be granted from the year 201011 as was granted by the Education Officer Latur, pursuant to his order in July, 2011 and that too on grant-in-aid basis. 4. All these petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common questions. To avoid rigmarole, they are decided together. 5. The learned counsel for respective petitioners so also the learned Addl. Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the Education Officer have advanced their arguments. 6. Mr. Khandare, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners submits that the divisions which were already sanctioned to various schools were declared surplus for want of sufficient students. They were closed. Such divisions were sanctioned and absorbed with the schools where the strength of students existed and the additional divisions were admissible by virtue of the order passed by the Education Officer in July, 2011. The learned counsel submits that the Education Officer was competent to sanction, allot divisions at his level. Moreover, the enquiry was conducted, enquiry reports were received by the Government. The Ghodmode Committee was appointed for holding enquiry. The said Committee submitted report to the Government. Due to the objections regarding conduct of the enquiry and to the report, the Government was required to give second thought to the problem. The said report was not accepted. A decision to hold enquiry afresh was taken. Physical inspection of the school was made in order to find out the actual physical strength of the students. On receipt of the report of the inspection, the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 was issued. Out of 58 schools to which divisions were allotted, 37 schools having 147 divisions are found to be legal. Out of 20 schools, reports regarding 14 schools have been received, however no decision for legalization of divisions in these 14 school is taken. The learned counsel submits that the said Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 states that appointment of the teachers would be considered on no grant basis from the year 20132014 as per existing grantinaid norms. The petitioners are objecting to the said conditions. 7. According to the learned counsel, the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 regulates the service conditions of the employees. Rules have been framed, regulating the procedure. Field of grant of permission to open schools, sanction of additional divisions in existing schools, sanction of new divisions, required students for maintaining such divisions etc. is governed by the Executive instructions and not the Act passed by the Legislature. Time to time, the Government resolutions and circulars are issued. The staffing pattern is sanctioned considering the number of divisions in the schools. The sanction of divisions is linked with the number of students studying in the class. The policy is ever changing. The learned counsel submits that the parliament, by virtue of 86th Amendment Act, 2002, inserted Article 21A thereby making right to education a fundamental right for the students within the age group of 6 to 14 years. They have fundamental right to free education. The same would include payment of salary to the teacher so that students within the said age group would not require to pay for the same. The learned counsel submits that in order to implement the Constitutional Policy enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution of India, the parliament enacted "The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Right to Education Act). The same was enforced from the year 2010. The learned counsel submits that the edifice of the Right to Education Act is based upon free and compulsory education up to the age of 14 years and quality education. 8. The learned counsel submits that because of introduction of the Right to Education Act, the statutory obligation is cast upon the Government to shoulder the responsibility of providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Reference can be had to Section 7 of the said Act. Section 8 of the Act mandates appropriate Government to provide free and compulsory elementary education for every child. Section 25 of the Right to Education Act makes provisions of pupil and teacher ratio as specified in schedule to the Act and further makes it compulsory to maintain the said ratio. Thus, the change is brought in by the Right to Education Act providing the pupilteacher ratio linked directly to the strength of students in the particular school and as such now the same would not be regulated by the executive instructions but by the provisions of the statutes enacted by the Parliament. The learned counsel further submits that the instructions issued from to time under Government Resolutions or circulars, earlier were superseded by one such Government Resolution dated 13.12.2013. The said Government Resolution clearly states that the norms for grant of divisions issued and which were in existence have been superseded after the enforcement of the Right to Education Act. The learned counsel submits that time and again, the Government Resolutions and circulars are issued with a view to enforce the provisions of the Right to Education Act, thereby prescribing procedure for determining the posts of teacher with reference to the strength of students in a particular school. 9. The learned counsel states that two circulars dated 10.05.2010, 18.06.2010 and Government Resolution dated 14.11.2013 are placed on record. The learned counsel also relies on the Government Resolution dated 28.08.2015 to contend that the said Government Resolution is issued after the impugned Government Resolution which clearly mentions the fact that division system has been abolished and therefore strength of students available in the class is required to be considered for grant of post of teacher. According to the leaned counsel, the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2015 and Government Resolution dated 14.11.2013 so also de hors the provisions of the Right to Education Act. The same is not in consonance with the object and spirit of the Right to Education Act. The Government cannot exercise any powers contrary to the provisions of the Right to Education Act. The action taken by the authorities by virtue of Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 and letter dated 04.08.2014 and other instructions are contrary to the Constitutional Scheme envisaged under Article 21A and the provisions of the Right to Education Act. In the impugned Government Resolution, the appointment of teachers are not considered on the basis of strength of students as contemplated under the Right to Education Act but on the basis of divisions sanctioned in a particular school. The Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 though speaks of the provisions of the Right to Education Act, however, the same is contrary to the provisions of the said Act and is based on the earlier Government Resolutions and it only takes into consideration the order passed by the Education Officer without considering the pupil-teacher ratio. The appointment of the teachers commensurate with the strength of the students is required to be considered on grant-in-aid basis. 10. Mr. Khandare, the learned counsel further submits that the Right to Education Act is a Central Enactment and the same will prevail over all other statute and, the provisions of the Right to Education Act will have to be applied with all its vigors. The learned counsel relies judgment of the Apex court in a case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K. V. Jeyaraj and others, reported in (2015) 6 Supreme Court cases 363. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the essential object and purpose of the Right to Education Act is to provide access to justice to primary school teachers. The Constitutional Guarantee of free and compulsory primary education is given practical content by the Act. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Litaka Rajaram Mane v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 244. 12. Mr. Panpatte, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners canvassed the following submissions: The Education Officer had sanctioned the divisions of the schools, the said divisions were earlier attached with the schools which were closed down and the Education Officer has the necessary power to sanction the grant-in-aid divisions of the closed schools to the existing schools where these additional divisions are admissible. To substantiate the contention, the learned counsel relies on the Government Resolution dated 06.12.2007 and 12.06.2007 and communication dated 20.11.2008. The learned counsel submits that while issuing the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014, the State has lost sight of these Government Resolutions. When the Education Officer has been empowered to sanction such divisions and when even upon enquiry, it is found that the divisions/additional divisions which are sanctioned to the schools are permissible as per the strength of the students, then there was no necessity to further issue Government Resolution and thereby stating that the same is granted on no grant basis from the academic year 2013-2014. 13. The learned counsel further submits that even an enquiry committee was appointed by the Government to submit the detail report with regard to the divisions, additional divisions sanctioned by the Education Officer; report was submitted and it was found that additional divisions are admissible. The learned counsel submits that even while passing the impugned orders and the Government Resolution, opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners which is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012. According to the learned counsel even exercise was done of an enquiry and it was found that out of 58 schools to which the additional divisions were sanctioned, in 38 schools, 147 divisions were sanctioned and they were found to be having adequate strength of students for the sanction of additional divisions. The names of the petitioners, Institutions and the teachers appointed therein appears in the accompaniment of the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014. 14. The learned counsel further submits that many of the petitioners have been granted approval and acquired right in their favour but the same was not looked into while issuing the impugned Government Resolution and stating that the said posts held by the teachers would be considered on no grant basis. The Right to Education Act no where contemplates to give grant in aid in a phased manner. This aspect is also not considered by the authorities while taking the decision. The appointment of these teachers cannot be held to be illegal. They are in continuous employment since 2010. Provisions for grant-in-aid is available in the budgetary provisions of the State Government. Even the salaries of some of the petitioners were drawn from the grant admissible. The decision to convert the posts held by teachers appointed on the said posts to no grant basis is bad in law. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents have failed to demonstrate as to how and in what manner the decision of the Education Officer to transfer the divisions of the closed down schools or divisions which were held to be inadmissible for continuation for want of students and attaching the same with the Institutions where there is adequate strength, requires either prior approval or concurrence or permission from higher officials. The Education Officer was within his right to sanction the said additional divisions as per the Government Resolution dated 12.06.2007 and 06.12.2007. If impugned Government Resolution is allowed to operate, then these persons who have been appointed will have to wait for further 7 to 8 years to become eligible for grant insptie of the facts that the posts held by them is having budgetary provisions, however, the same was not utilized. To that extent the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is bad in law. 15. The learned counsel further submits that perusal of the provisions of the Right to Education Act would reveal that the staff sanction and determination is governed by Rules framed under section 25 of the Right to Education Act. Even Government Resolution dated 20.08.2015 lays down that it is the Education Officer who is authorised in law to determine the staff sanction and prior permission of the State Government is no where contemplated. All the schools in the State either run by State Government, local self government or private schools, whether receiving grant in aid or not are governed by the Right to Education Act. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to state that before the Education Officer takes decision to attach the closed division to another school, consultation with the State Government is necessary. 16. The learned counsel further submits that the provisions of the Right to Education Act makes it compulsory to make available the facility of education in all areas within the vicinity of two kms. The impugned Government Resolution does not take into account the said provisions of the Right to Education Act. The posts held by these persons appointed pursuant to the order of the Education Officer sanctioned in these additional divisions have been found to be admissible as per the fresh roll verification done. In such a situation, decision to convert the posts held by the petitioners from admissible to grant into non grant in aid post is unsustainable and does not stand to any reason. 17. Mr. Panpatte, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 to contend that what is not stated in the impugned order cannot be supplemented by affidavit. The learned counsel further relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & others v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No.416/2012 with connected petitions, decided on 06.05.2014), so also the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ms Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1858(1) submits that Apex Court has also upheld the said enactment i.e. Right to Education Act and further observed that the said Act intends to achieve the constitutional goal of equality of opportunity through inclusive elementary education to all. The learned counsel submits that it is the State who would be funding for free education of the children belonging to weaker sections. Under section 12(2) of the Right to Education Act, the school is to be reimbursed for the expenses to the extent of per child expenditure incurred by it. The provisions are incorporated in furtherance of the object underlying Article 21A of the Constitution to provide free and compulsory education. 18. Mr. Panpatte, the learned counsel also relies on the judgment of Division bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Sunanda dhondiram Wadje v. The State of Maharashtra and others, delivered in Writ Petition No. 5186/2004 dated 27th June, 2005 to contend that even assuming that the Education Officer has committed illegality while granting approval, the same cannot be corrected at the cost of the rights of the petitioners being abridged and violated 19. Mr. Chaukidar, the learned counsel holding for Mr. Solunke, the learned counsel for some of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners i.e. teachers are appointed by following due procedure of law and their services are continued. The learned counsel submits that all divisions which are allotted were closed down long back and the teachers working in closed down divisions were already accommodated in other schools and at that time there were no surplus teachers. The petitioners were appointed on these sanctioned divisions and as such are eligible for the grant-in-aid, as these divisions which have been transferred to existing schools were the closed down divisions on grant in aid basis. The action of the Government is against the provisions of the Right to Education Act. The schools where the petitioners are working are primary schools and the provisions of the Right to Education Act are applicable. The petitioners have completed their three years probation as Shikshan Sevak and have attained deemed permanency. As per section 8 of the Right to Education Act, the duties of the appropriate Government are prescribed and one such duty is to provide free elementary education to every child up to age of 6 to 14 years and ensure compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by every child of the age of 6 to 14 years. Even it is the bounden duty of the Government to provide infrastructure including school building teaching staff and learning equipment. Learned counsel refers to Section 8 of the Right to Education Act. In view of that, the learned counsel submits that it is the responsibility of the State Government to pay salary to the petitioners as soon as they are granted approval by the competent authority. Services of the petitioners are approved and as such, withdrawing the grant-in-aid of the schools wherein the petitioners are working by issuing Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is illegal and erroneous. According to the learned counsel the Government is also convinced that considering the strength of the students available in the schools wherein the petitioners are working, the respondents State has maintained the divisions and the petitioners are appointed by following due process of law. As such, the divisions on which the petitioners are working are entitled to receive grant-in-aid. To the extent of withdrawal of grantinaid the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 20. Mr. Gunale the learned counsel for some of the petitioners adopts the arguments canvassed by the other Advocates. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Ram Avad v. Shivdatta Education Trust, reported in 2007 (6) All M.R. 716 to contend that on completion of probation of three years, the petitioners would be treated as deemed permanent teacher. 21. Mrs. Gondhalekar, the learned Addl. Government Pleader submits that the Education Officer (Primary), while passing the order in July, 2011, had committed manifest illegalities and irregularities by directing absorption of divisions, giving approval to divisions, staffing pattern and also giving individual/ personal approval on one and the same date. Learned Addl. G. P. submits that the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 and more particularly, Clause No.2 incorporated therein has not been complied by any of the School Managements of the petitioners for the year 20142015 20152016 even after filing of the petitions. The said Clause No.2 specifically lays down the condition to follow the procedure as laid down in Government Resolution dated 06.02.2012, the same has not yet been done. According to the learned Addl.G.P. all the petitioners were not appointed by following due procedure of law. No permission was obtained, no intimation was sent to the Department for filling in the posts, the filling of roster point vacancies were not observed and the teachers who are appointed have not passed the examination. Even they cannot be termed as regularly appointed teachers. According to the learned Addl. G.P., the reliance placed on the Government Resolutions dated 12.06.2007 and 6.12.2007 by the petitioners is misplaced. Absorption of divisions from school receiving grant-in-aid to partial grant-in-aid or non grant-in-aid has to be along with the absorption of the teachers who were working in the said closed down divisions. The Education Officer, while passing the order allowing absorption of such divisions, did not consider accommodating and absorbing the surplus teachers on those closed down divisions. According to the learned Addl. G.P., fixing the post of teachers, corresponding to the number of students, the same is to be followed by the Management after introduction of the Right to Education Act. The same is laid down in the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2013 and 18.06.2010. 22. The learned Additional G.P. submits that Government Resolution dated 8.11.2000 specifically lays down stage wise grant-in-aid disbursement after fulfilling eligibility. All these facets were required to be considered by the Education Officer while absorbing the closed down divisions. The learned Addl. G.P. further submits that in case the Education Officer was to exercise his right as per the Government Resolution dated 12.06.2007 and 6.12.2007, then the closed down divisions are required to be absorbed with other schools immediately. In the present case the same has been done in some matters after 10 years and in some matters after five years, which is not permissible. The learned Addl. G.P. further submits that the petitioners cannot claim grant-in-aid as of right. It depends upon the policy decision of the State and the State has taken a policy decision about awarding the grants. The Government Resolution dated 05.11.2011 lays down parameters about evaluation of grants. 23. Learned Addl. G.P. relies on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in a case of St. Ulai High school v. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh, reported in 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. 514 to submit that power of appointment is regulated by the Act and the Rules and the matter concerning the grant of approval is between Management and the Education Officer and is relevant only for the release of grant by the State Government to the Management. Appointment and conditions of service of teachers is governed by the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Acts and Rules. The same have to be followed and the primary responsibility of payment of salary is on the Management. 24. Mr. Bonder, the learned counsel for the Education Officer (Primary) adopts argument of the learned Addl. G. P. According to the learned counsel, all the petitioners /teachers were appointed on non grant in aid basis. The payment of their salary has to be borne by the Management. 25. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 26. Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is the subject matter of the present writ petitions. The said Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is required to be issued to clear up the mess created by the Education Officer, Latur. 27. Various schools in Latur division which were on grant-in-aid were closed down for more than 5 to 10 years. In the year 20112012, the Education Officer (Primary), Latur allotted those closed down divisions of the closed down schools or of those schools, where those divisions had became inadmissible, to the existing schools that too with retrospective effect. If the order is passed by the Education Officer (Primary) in February and August, 2011, the same is allotted for the year 201011 and if the order is passed in March, 2012, the divisions are directed to be absorbed for the year 2011-12. 28. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Education Officer (Primary) has the power to absorb said divisions to the existing schools wherever permissible and for the said purpose, they rely on the Government Resolution dated 06.12.2007. If the said Government Resolution dated 6.12.2007 is perused, then the said Government Resolution lays down certain modalities to be observed while absorbing the additional divisions. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the said Government Resolution, which is vernacular language, reads as under:
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
Reading Clause 4, it is manifest that if the division is to be absorbed, then the approved teacher has to be absorbed along with the division. Without absorbing the teacher, the division cannot be absorbed. While passing the order of absorbing the additional divisions of the closed down schools with the existing schools, the Education Officer (Primary) did not pass any order with regard to absorption of the teachers along with the said divisions. Further, it is not the case that the said schools had closed down in that year. The said schools were closed down more than 5 to 10 years back and the closed down divisions were abruptly allotted to the existing schools. The said Government Resolution cannot be read to mean that the Education Officer (Primary), even after a long slumber of 10 years, would allot the closed down divisions to the existing schools. The very purpose of issuing the said Government Resolution dated 06.12.2007 is that the closed down divisions should be allotted to the existing schools wherever permissible with a view to absorb the teachers in that closed down schools along with the divisions. Clause 4 as reproduced above makes this position amply clear. 30. It appears that those schools to whom additional divisions were abruptly allotted with retrospective effect had appointed fresh teachers. The contention of the petitioners is that at that time, surplus teachers were not available. Be that as it may, at the first instance, the Education Officer (Primary) itself ought not have allotted the closed down divisions of the schools which were closed down almost 10 years back without making any enquiry of availability of surplus teachers. Order of absorption of additional division should accompany the order of absorption of the teachers of that division and this is the purport of Clause 4 of the said Government Resolution dated 06.12.2007. Even Government Resolution dated 10th June, 2007 lays down the same. The said Government Resolution applies at a time when because of lack of students, the division is on the verge of being closed and at that time, the Education Officer has to take steps and not after 5 to 10 years. It would be seen that even approvals were granted by Education Officer to the appointments made on the said additional divisions directed to be absorbed in the existing school with retrospective effect, immediately. At the first instance, absorption of additional divisions of the closed down schools to the existing schools with retrospective effect itself was illegal. No such order to operate with retrospective effect could have been passed. 31. The Government, with a view to clear the mess, appointed the Ghodmode Committee for holding enquiry. Report was submitted by the Godmode Committee to the Government. Objections were received regarding conduct of enquiry and to the report. The said report was not accepted and fresh enquiry is conducted. Physical inspection of the school was made in order to find out the actual physical strength of the students. After receipt of report of the inspection, Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 came to be issued. In fact, as a one time measure, the said Government resolution is issued. The Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 has safeguarded the appointments made of the teachers (of course if made legally by following proper procedure) on these additional divisions directed to be absorbed with the existing schools. 32. Upon enquiry, it is found that out of 58 schools, 147 divisions of 37 schools are eligible for absorption and out of remaining 20 schools, decision is yet to be taken in respect of divisions of 14 schools. As the Education Officer has committed irregularity and illegality while absorbing these additional divisions, as a one time measure, Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is issued and these additional divisions have been granted approval from the year 201314, thereby protecting appointment of the teachers made on these additional 147 divisions, provided appointment is as per rule i.e. satisfying the roster as approved by the B.C. Cell and proper procedure at the time of appointment being followed and their evaluation would be made to bring them on grant in aid basis subsequently. 33. The petitioners have placed much reliance on the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Right to Education Act) and the Government Resolution dated 28.08.2015. It is true that by virtue of 86th Amendment to the Constitution, Article 21A is introduced. It provides for free and compulsory education to all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a fundamental right. Consequently, the Right to Education Act is introduced. It casts an obligation on the appropriate Government to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all children between the age group of six to fourteen years. Section 25 of the Right to Education Act reads as under: "25. Pupil-Teacher Ratio( 1) Within three years from the date of commencement of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio, as specified in the Schedule, is maintained in each school. (2) For the purpose of maintaining the Pupil Teacher Ratio, under subsection (1), no teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any noneducational purpose, other than those specified in section 27." It would be seen that Pupil-Teacher ratio as specified in the schedule is required to be maintained in each school. As such, now the number of teachers would not be dependent upon the number of divisions but the number of teachers would be dependent upon the strength of student. 34. Under the Right to Education Act, "school" is defined under section 2(n), the same reads as under "2(n)"School" means any recognised school imparting elementary education and includes (i)a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or a local authority; (ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority; (iii) a school belonging to specified category; and (iv) an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority;" The school is categorized into schools owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local authority; an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet the whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority; the school belonging to specified category and an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses. Sections 11 and 12 of the said Act lays down a mandate upon all the schools run by the Government or its local authority to provide free and compulsory education to all children admitted therein. It further lays down that those schools specified in sub clause (ii) of clause (n) of section 2 shall provide free and compulsory elementary education to such proportion of children admitted therein as its annual recurring aid or grants so received, bears to its annual recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of 25 %. Those schools specified in clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 shall admit in Class at least 25% of the strength of that class, the children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education to such students and expenses shall be reimbursed by the State. 35. Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the fact that though the impugned Government Resolution refers to the provisions of the Right to Education Act, still it has considered the number of additional divisions and not the strength of students, while regularizing the additional divisions. As stated above, the Government Resolution dated 02.12.2014 is a result of the mess created by the Education Officer and to streamline the same, the said Government Resolution is issued. In fact it was to support the teachers who were appointed on such additional divisions which were directed to be absorbed by the Education Officer erroneously. Now, as per the Act of 2009, teacher-pupil ratio will have to be maintained. 36. The major objection of the petitioners is that though the divisions of the closed down schools which were directed to be absorbed were on grant in aid, under the impugned resolution, the same is to be considered on non grant in aid from the academic year 201314. The Right to Education Act does not deal with providing grant in a particular manner nor there is any Government Resolution which states that if an additional division is granted or additional post is created, the same would be directly on grant-in-aid basis. It is not necessary that every school and or every division has to be on grant-in-aid basis. Those schools which do not receive complete aid from the appropriate Government, they are directed to provide free and compulsory education to 25% of the students and their expenses is to be made by the Government. 37. The Apex Court, in case of Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & ors., referred supra, has observed as under: "44. When we examine the 2009 Act, we find that under Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 2(n) (iv) of the Act, an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority is required to admit in class I, to the extent of at least twenty-five percent of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion. We further find that under Section 12 (2) of the 2009 Act such a school shall be reimbursed expenditure so incurred by it to the extent of perchild expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual amount charged from the child, whichever is less, in such manner as may be prescribed. Thus ultimately it is the State which is funding the expenses of free and compulsory education of the children belonging to weaker sections and several groups in the neighbourhood, which are admitted to a private unaided school. These provisions of the 2009 Act, in our view, are for the purpose of providing free and compulsory education to children between the age group of 6 to 14 years and are consistent with the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court in T.M.A. Pai foundation (Supra) and are meant to achieve the constitutional goals of equality of opportunity in elementary education to children of weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in our society. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the non minority private schools that Article 21A of the Constitution and the 2009 Act violate their right under Article 19(1)()g) of the Constitution. " 38. Grant in aid is neither fundamental right nor statutory right of educational institutions. The Division Bench of this Court, in case of Keraleeya Samajam and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 171, has held that grantinaid cannot be claimed as of right. There is no legal or constitutional right insofar as grant-in-aid is concerned. 39. We do not find any defined policy laid down by the Government with regard to the sanction of additional posts and for giving grant to them. We expect the State Government to evolve a defined policy, keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Right to Education Act, thereby laying down the grant of additional posts, powers to grant additional posts so also eligibility for grant-in-aid and the period of entitlement of grant-in-aid for additional posts created. 40. Under the impugned Government Resolution, the Government has held that those posts which would be admissible would be on non grant-in-aid from the year 201314. These posts are admissible for the academic year in which the order was passed by the Education Officer i.e. if the order was passed in February, July or August, 2011, from the year 201112, if order was passed in 2012, from the year 20122013, then it can consider providing approval from the said years on non grant in aid instead of the year 201314. Reliance placed on the Government Resolutions dated 12.06.2007 and 6.12.2007 by the petitioners would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. 41. The State Government shall reconsider whether permission on non grant basis would be granted to these divisions/posts from the year, the order was passed of absorbing said divisions i.e. if the order was passed in February and August, 2011, from the year 201112 and if the order of absorption was passed in June, July, 2012, from the year 2012-13. The State shall also take final decision in respect of those 14 schools out of 21 in respect of which the decision is not yet taken as is stated in the impugned Government Resolution. The same would be done expeditiously, preferably within four months. Writ petitions accordingly disposed of. No costs.