P.T.V.S. HIGH SCHOOL, KANCHEEPURAM Vs. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MADRAS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 :

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.