Grant-in-aid executive instructions create no enforceable right for teachers, and mandamus will not lie under Article 226.

Executive instructions governing leave and other service conditions, framed as conditions for grant-in-aid to private colleges, were treated as non-statutory and therefore not enforceable as legal rights. Because the instructions regulated the terms on which the State extended financial aid, their effect remained a matter between the State and college management, and teachers could not invoke Article 226 to compel or restrain their implementation. Acceptance of the grant conditions by the Governing Body did not create an enforceable right in teachers, and no writ of mandamus lay where the rules had no statutory force. The High Court's direction preventing effect to the March 20, 1962 letter was therefore held erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel or restrain the State and its Director from giving effect to grant-in-aid conditions embodied only in executive instructions, and whether those instructions conferred any enforceable right on teachers of private colleges.

Analysis: The Rules governing leave and other service conditions were held to be mere executive instructions framed as conditions for grant-in-aid and not statutory rules. Such instructions regulated the terms on which the State chose to extend financial aid to private colleges, and their operation was a matter between the State and the college management. Acceptance of the grant conditions by the Governing Body did not create a legal right in the teachers to insist on enforcement or non-enforcement of those conditions. A teacher could not invoke Article 226 to challenge or control the State's decision on grant-in-aid conditions where no statutory force attached to the Rules. The Court also referred to the settled principle that no enforceable right arises from mere administrative instructions.

Conclusion: The writ of mandamus against the State through the Director was not maintainable, and the order of the High Court directing the State not to give effect to the letter of March 20, 1962 was erroneous.

---