alike, should not apply to them. There is no case for the minority managements that no teacher appointed by them would be benefited by the Government Order in question. The minority managements cannot contend that teachers appointed by them, who were subsequently retrenched, should be absorbed only by non minority managements in their schools or by the Government in the Government schools. The allegation made in the counter-affidavit that many of the additional division vacancies were filled up by the managements, including minority managements, not by absorbing protected teachers but by fresh hands, is to taken note of in this context. The right conferred under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India cannot be claimed to the detriment of non minority institutions. The minority institutions could claim only equal rights along with non minority institutions. The liability arising out the acts of the managements is to be shouldered by them and there can be no exception to minority managements.

- 41. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the Petitioners on this aspect of the case.

Point No. 8: 42. The Petitioners contended that the Government Order in question is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The State takes the stand that the restrictions imposed are reasonable restrictions.

- 43. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State, the following averments have been made:

It is submitted that Section 9 of the Act deals with the payment of salary to the teachers in aided schools. It says that the Government shall pay the salary of all teachers in aided schools direct or through the Headmaster of the school. It is submitted that the Government offer financial assistance to the aided schools by way of direct payment of salaries and pensions to teaching and non teaching staff. Grants are also given for the maintenance and for meeting some of the non salary revenue expenditure. The financial burden of State exchequer on account of this direct payment to private school has become very heavy. Studies reveal that 56% of the revenue expenditure on secondary education of the State Government is towards assistance to private secondary educational schools. It is also important to note that during the year 2008-2009, one third of the total expenditure of the State Government towards salary was spent for meeting the salary expenditure of aided educational institutions. The above facts are submitted only for the purpose of highlighting the financial commitment incurred by the Government for the proper running and maintenance of the educational institutions. For a long time the absorption of retrenched teachers has been projected as the sole obligation of the Government. No doubt the Government is committed to the social obligation of protecting those teachers who are thrown out from schools for factors beyond their control. No doubt the Government has sympathy for them. It was in materialization of the above social objective that the Government issued orders from time to time from 1969 onwards for offering protection to the retrenched teachers. This by itself does not take away the statutory obligation of the managers to afford job and security to the teachers, who are thrown out from the institutions they worked. By the various orders issued for affording protection, the Government has only contributed for fixing some norms and standards for the