ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, with the joint request of the parties, these appeals are finally heard and decided by this common order. Facts of Writ Appeal No.909 of 2018 are narrated hereunder:

2. The State of Madhya Pradesh and two others have filed this writ appeal against the judgment dated 15.3.2018, in which the Writ Court allowed Writ Petition No.2595 of 2017 by directing appellants to post and absorb respondent No.1 in any other non-government-aided institution with 50% back wages.

The facts of the case in short are as under:

3. Respondent No.1 was working as an Assistant Teacher in the school run by respondent No.2 which was a Non-Government educational institution, but receiving a grant-in-aid from the State Government. The State Government discontinued the grant-in-aid w.e.f. 28.4.2016 because of which respondent No.2 decided to close down the school permanently, resulting in respondent No.1 being jobless. Respondent No.1 approached the Writ Court by way of writ petition inter alia on the ground that he has rendered 35 years of service and suddenly became unemployed because of stoppage of the grant-in-aid by the State Government, he is liable to be absorbed in any other non-Government educational institution which is receiving the grant-in-aid from the Government.

3. The appellants being respondents filed a detailed and exhaustive reply submitting that there is no statutory provision in existence under which respondent No.1 can be absorbed in any other Government aided educational institution, therefore, in the absence of any statutory or constitutional vested right, no writ could be issued.

4. The Writ Court vide order dated 15.3.2018 has allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on a judgment passed by Indore Christian College Indore v. State of M.P. in Writ Petition No.10124 of 2010 decided on 21.11.2011 has directed appellant (therein) to absorb the respondent No.1 in some other school receiving grant-in-aid with 50% back wages. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

5. It is a settled position of law that unless there is a statutory right in favour of the petitioner, no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court. The Madhya Pradesh Legislature had passed an act in the name of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyo Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Niyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred as "Niyam, 1978") for regulating the payment of salaries to the teachers and other employees of Non-Government Educational Institutions for Higher receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and the nonGovernment Educational Institution for higher education receiving grantin-aid from Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and other matters ancillary thereto. This act is made applicable to all the institutions falling under Clause (e) of sub-section (2) excluding the institution established, administered and managed by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, etc.

6. There are two categories of persons working in the institution one ''Employee'' as defined under sub-Section 2(d) and another ''Teacher'' as defined under sub-section (2)(i). As per the definition, a teacher of an institution in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government or the Ayog, as the case may be, to the institutions and includes any other teacher employed, with the prior approval of the authority specified by the State Government in this behalf. The institution must be recognized or affiliated by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education or any University or Ayog, as the case may be. The salary means the pay and dearness allowance for the time being payable to a teacher or an employee at the rate approved for the purpose of payment of maintenance grant.

7. Section 6 says that notwithstanding anything cont