P.T.V.S. High School, Kancheepuram vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—P.T.V.S. High School, Kancheepuram, has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents to release the financial aid to the teaching and non teaching staff of their school from 1991 - ''92 onwards. The case of the petitioner is

briefly stated here under :

Writ petitioner school was started by one Punnamai Thiyagaraja Naicker as an elementary school in 1889. Subsequently, the school became a

middle school. Thereafter the school was entrusted to an association of Vannia Kula Kshatriya Community people and now the said association is

running the school. The school is a recognised school and is receiving grant from the first respondent. The committee which is running the school

decided to upgrade it as high school with standards 9th and 10th. Accordingly on 3.4.90 an application was sent to the respondents after paying

the prescribed fees. The second respondent by his letter dt. 6.6.91 informed the petitioner that the request for upgradation will be considered if the

petitioner school is willing to run the school as an unaided school. Finally the first respondent in Government Order (4D) No: 7 Education (r)

Department dt. 24.12.91 accepted to upgrade the petitioner school into that of high school from that academic year subject to a condition that the

petitioner high school should not seek any aid from the Government ever in future. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation dt. 3.2.1992 to

the Chief Minister and requested for relaxation of the condition imposed in the Government Order dated 24.12.91. Petitioner made another

representation dt. 9.6.92 to respondents 2 to 4 and also further representations were made in the years 1993 and 1994. In the absence of any

favourable reply, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Pursuant to the RULE NISI, the fist respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated

that the Government permitted to upgrade the petitioner school into a high school with a condition that aid will not be granted for ever. According

to Section 14 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulations) Act no private school shall, only on the ground of having been

granted recognition under this Act be entitled to any grant or other financial assistance from the Government. The Government may, subject to

availability of funds, the norms and the conditions specified in the Grant in aid code, the rules, orders, notifications issued by the Government from

time to time, pay grant or other financial assistance to the Private School. The Government is unable to pay the grant or other financial assistance to

the private schools due to financial constrains and the State Government is unable fulfill the needs of the private educational agency and the same

was communicated to the petitioner. Due to financial constrains the Government have taken a policy decision that the individual upgraded school

should not seek for any grant or any aid.

In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Advocate for the

respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioner school is very well aware of the conditional order passed by the Government in G.O.(4D)No:

7, Education ( R ) Department dt. 24.12.91. The management of the school has applied for upgradation of their school into high school with effect

from the academic year 1991-''92. After examining their request and the proposal of the Directorate of School Education, the government in the

said order upgraded the said school into high school subject to a condition that the upgraded high school should not seek for any grant or aid from

the Government for ever in future. Admittedly till date the petitioner school has not challenged the said conditional order passed by the

Government. No doubt the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice various representations given to the educational authorities

for relaxation. Further the fact remains that the said order of the Government stating that the school should not seek for any grant or aid from the

Government for ever in future remains unchanged.

In this regard learned Government Advocate drew my attention to Section 14 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulations)

Act and Rule 11 (5) (i) of the Private Schools Rules and would contend that in the light of the statutory provisions, the financial constrains and the

policy decision taken by the Government, no mandamus can be issued as claimed by the petitioner. I am in agreement with the said contention for

the following reasons. I have also referred to the ground fact that upgradation was granted with a specific condition that the petitioner school

should not seek any grant or aid for ever in future. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent after referring to the above mentioned

statutory provisions, it is stated that due to financial constrains, the government have taken a policy decision that the newly upgraded schools

should not seek any grant-in-aid. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, no direction can be issued as

claimed by the petitioner.

It is also relevant to refer to the decision of Justice P. Shanmugam reported in 2001 W.L.R. 145 (St. Stephen Middle School, Bagavathipuram

& Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu). In that decision while considering the claim of the minority institutions in paragraph 19 it was held that,

The claim by the non-minority institutions for aid, additional classes and posts are unsustainable in the light of Section 14 read with Rule 11 of the

Rules. ......

No doubt the learned counsel for the petitioner states that against the decision of the learned single Judge, the aggrieved person have preferred an

appeal and the same is pending. Unless and until the decision is varied or reversed, the said conclusion of the learned single Judge is binding on me.

It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the North Arcot Ambedkhar and Sambuvarayar District recognised Private aided Primary and Middle

Schools Managers and Teacher Managers Association Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, wherein in similar circumstances the learned

Judge has held that,

.. it is clear that while recognising a school the Government, subject to its financial position, give grant to an educational agency to the teaching

and non-teaching staff. It is clear from the provisions of the Act there is no fundamental right to grant, but it is only statutory right. It also makes it

clear that merely because of recognition of a school, the school will not be entitled to grant. .....

In the light of the statutory provisions referred to above, I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge.

Mr. R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in The

Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Mrs. Rajni Vali and Others, , would contend that direction may be given as prayed for. In the light of

his claim, I have carefully gone through the factual position and ultimate decision rendered by their Lordships and I am satisfied that in that decision

the Supreme Court has considered parity in the pay scales and dearness allowance of teachers employed in aided schools and those employed in

Government Schools. Accordingly the said decision is not helpful to the claim of the petitioner. No doubt the learned counsel for the petitioner has

also brought to my notice an unreported decision of V. Bakthavatsalu, J. made in W.P. No: 6592 of 1993 dt. 11.10.1993. After going through the

said decision and in the light of Section 14 (1) and Rule 11 (5) (i), I am of the view that the said decision is also not helpful to the case on hand.

In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner and consequently the writ petition fails and

the same is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that it is upto the petitioner to persuade the

Government to relax the condition imposed in G.O. Ms. (4D) No"": 7, Education( R ) Department dated 24.12.1991.