R S BALARAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR.: This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.84 of 1988 decided on 7th of January, 1988.

(2.) APPELLANTS had prayed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1820, Education, dated 30th of October, 1975 and to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30th of October, 1975 and for a further direction to the respondents to pay the maintenance grant to the writ petitioners" schools at the rate of 6 per cent out of the total teaching grant every year and for payment of the arrears. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the following order: "Certainly after 12 long years, the G.O. cannot be quashed. Therefore solely on the ground of laches, the writ petition will stand dismissed. This shall be without prejudice to any other right of the petitioners."

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants faced with the counter affidavit (supra) submitted there were no guidelines regarding the payment of the grant "upto 6 per cent" absence of the guidelines the possibility of arbitrariness in the grant could not be ruled We do not agree. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter that the payment of uniform of maintenance grant at 6 per cent cannot be made to all schools as there are very cases in which some schools were maintained well by the management and some were It is stated that those who maintain the schools properly may get maintenance grant higher rate than those who do not so well maintain. That apart, in paragraph 7 of counter it is stated that the maintenance grant is paid on the basis of the guidelines have been spelt out in that paragraph itself. It cannot, therefore, he said that there were guidelines for the payment of the maintenance grant. Keeping in view these averments the counter, we find that the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.1820, Education, dated 30th October, 1975 principally and primarily on the ground that the maintenance grant was left the whims and arbitrariness without any guidelines must fail on facts. These guidelines been issued by way of executive instructions and they can certainly be looked into in absence of any rules to the contrary. Thus, we find that there is no ground made out interfere with the order of the learned Judge and we uphold that order though for different reasons. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.