Madras High Court
C.Alexander vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.23973 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 31/01/2025
Pronounced on : 18/02/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P.(MD).No. 23973 of 2017
1. C.Alexander,
Watchman, CSI High School,
Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
2. CSI High School,
through Correspondent K.Pitchai,
Manamadurai, Sivaganagai District. … Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary to Government,
Education Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
Secondary Education, D.P.I.College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The District Education Officer,
Collector Office Compound,
Sivagangai - 623 560. ....
Respondents
Prayer: To issue a Writ, order or direction and in particular issue a writ in
the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the
respondents 1 to 3 herein to regularize the first petitioner service as
watchman by continuing the sanction accorded in G.O.Ms.926 Education
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 26
W.P.(MD)No.23973 of 2017
(D1) Department dated 24.07.1989 read with G.O.Ms.No.525 Education
Department dated 29.12.1997 in terms with the direction issued by this
Honorable Court division Bench by its judgment reported in (2008) 4 MLJ
289 and to pay all service benefits, emoluments, arrears of salary within
such time as this Honorable Court may be pleased to direct in so far as the
petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jherome
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking regularization of
the watchman post, along with the continuation of the sanction granted in
the Government Order, as well as the corresponding service benefits and
arrears of salary, as detailed above. The matter was admitted on 22.12.2017,
and the learned Special Government Pleader took notice. Subsequent
proceedings directed the respondent to submit a report on actions taken, and
accordingly, the learned Assistant Government Pleader produced a copy of
the proceedings issued by the Joint Director (Secondary) dated 25.06.2021.
The order stated that representations had been received from the CSI Central
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 of 26
Higher Secondary School, Arakkonam, Vellore District (dated 25.03.2014)
and St. Joseph’s High School, Pilanklai, Kanyakumari District (dated
25.03.2014) seeking salary grants for teaching and non-teaching posts.
These requests were examined and rejected as they did not fulfil the
guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 1329/1999
and batch cases dated 24.03.2008. The Order further stated:
“It is further stated that the representations of the
above said school managements seeking grant for the
teaching and non-teaching posts have been examined as per
the directions given in para 29 of the common orders passed
by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
the batch cases in W.A.No 1329/1999 and etc. dated
24.03.2008 and rejected as the schools were not entitled for
release of grant for the teaching and non teaching posts
mentioned in the representations. Since they have not
fulfilled the guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in the common order passed in the Batch cases in
W.A. No.1329 of 1999 and etc. dated 24.3.2008. The copies
of the above said rejection orders are enclosed herewith.”
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 19.8.2019, and
the 3rd respondent filed an additional counter affidavit dated 16.7.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 of 26
4. The facts leading to the current writ petition are as follows: The
1st petitioner is employed as a watchman by the 2nd petitioner, an aided
minority school. The school had previously filed W.P. No. 8799 of 1988,
seeking a direction to grant aid for teaching and non-teaching staff from the
year of recognition (1985) onwards as follows:
“to grant aid by way of allowance of teaching and non
teaching staffs posts to the petitioner’s C.S.I High school,
Manamadurai, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam District from
the year or recognition (i.e.,) 1985 onwards with all benefits
and privileges attendant there to in accordance with law
and in particular in accordance with Rules 18 and 71 0f the
Tamil Nadu Education Rules, the Grant in Aid Code,
G.O.Ms.No.581-Education, dated 22.04.1964,
G.O.Ms.No.583-Education dated 23.04.1966 and the
Tamilnadu recognized Private Schools Regulation Act 1973
and Rules 1974 and the Tamilnadu Minority Schools
Recognition and Payment of Grant Rules 1977”
5. Pending the writ petition, they filed a WMP.No. 12878/88, seeking
interim directions and the relief claimed was as follows:
“ To direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to great
interim aid to one Head master from 20.06.1986, one
B.T.Assistants from 01.06.1988 onwards, Two Secondary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 of 26
Grade Teachers from 18.08.1988 onwards, One Junior
Assistant from 18.08.1986 onwards, One Record Clerk from
01.06.1988 onwards, one peon from 19.08.1988 onwards,
One sweeper cum Scavenger from 01.06.1988 onwards with
all benefits and privileges attendant thereto to the teaching
and non teaching staffs working in the petitioner’s C.S.I High
school, Manamadurai, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam District
pending disposal of the above writ petition.”
6. An interim direction was granted by this Court on 04.08.1988.
Subsequently, they filed WMP No. 17658/88 to include the words “one
watchman from 9.1.87 onwards” in the prayer for interim direction. In the
meanwhile, on threat of contempt notice from this Court dated 07.07.1989,
the 1st respondent Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 926, Education
Department, dated 24.07.1989. The first three paragraphs of the order and
the relevant portion of the annexure appended to the order read as follows:
Sanction is accorded for the creation of the temporary
posts, as detailed in the annexure to this order, to the C.S.I
High School, Manamadurai, Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan
District for the period up to 1.11.87 from the dates noted
against each post as per the direction of the High Court,
Madras in the order first read above. The staff grant will be
released after the management furnishes security and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 of 26
guarantee as directed by the High Court.
2. The sanction, now accorded in paragraph I above is
purely temporary and without prejudice to the orders of the
High Court in the main Writ Petition No.8799/88. If the main
Writ Petition is ultimately dismissed or the Government
succeed in the Writ Appeal or the Special Leave Petition to
be filed, in case the writ is disposed of against the
Government, the institution would be liable to repay the
entire grant received by them from Government.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Pasumpon Thevar
Thirumagan District and the District Educational Officer,
Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan District are requested to
obtain either immovable properly or Bank Guarantee as
security for the amounts to be disbursed from time to time as
ordered by High Court, Madras.
ANNEXURE
Sl.No. Name of Date from No. of Scale of pay
the post which posts
created
4 Watchman 080787 One 450-10-
570-15-720
7. The writ petition filed by the parties was later clubbed with
other similar cases filed by other schools and was disposed of by the
Division Bench by a common order in Maryna Memorial High School,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 26
Bethelpuram v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others (1991 Writ LR 130,
dated 06.12.1990).
8. Following this, the Government issued orders G.O. Ms. No. 340,
School Education dated 01.04.1992 and G.O. Ms. No. 410, School
Education dated 06.01.1992 regarding staff sanction. Same school
management filed a writ petition challenging these orders and sought
directions for the sanction of posts for their schools. However, the High
Court ruled against them, stating that educational institutions do not have a
fundamental right to receive aid.
9. The matter was later appealed before a Division Bench.
Meanwhile, the earlier batch of cases, in which orders were passed by the
Division Bench on 6.12.1990, was also appealed to the Supreme Court by
the 1st respondent State in Civil Appeal No.5381 of 1990. The Supreme
Court set aside the Division Bench order and remanded all cases, directing
the High Court to reconsider the issues in light of the landmark judgment in
TMA Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481.
10. In the remand order, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 of 26
“ Status quo shall continue unless the High Court so decides
to modify the same by an appropriate application made to it
by any of the parties. The parties are at liberty to file fresh
pleadings, if any, within the period fixed by the High Courts.
It is made clear that all statutory enactments, orders,
schemes, regulations will have to be brought in conformity
with the decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka
and Others (supra) case decided on 31.10.2002. As and
when any problem arises the same can be dealt with an
appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding.”
11. On such remand, the matters were posted before the Division
Bench which included the writ petition from the petitioners in W.P. No.
8799/88. The Division Bench disposed of the batch of cases on 24.3.2008,
in a ruling titled G. Sahadevan Nair vs. Government of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 2008 (4) MLJ 289. In paragraph 29 of the order, the Division
Bench issued general directions for considering grant-in-aid applications
based on eligibility criteria, but without guaranteeing grant approvals:
“ For the aforesaid reasons , we allow the various writ
petitions by giving the following directions:-
(i) The state of Tamil Nadu and the other authorities
concerned shall consider the application of each of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 of 26
Institution for grant-in-aid within a period of 16 weeks
without being influenced by the fact that such institutions had
been established without obtaining any prior permission and
also by the fact that such institutions had given letter in
writing indicating that after obtaining recognition they will
not claim any grant-in-aid. However, while considering such
application, the relevant facts such as the existence of
necessary infrastructure, teacher-student ratio and the
eligibility of the concerned teacher to hold the post should be
considered.
(ii) If it is found that any particular institution is
entitled to receive any aid, decision should be taken with
regard to eligibility within a period of four months and should
be communicated to the concerned institution.
(iii) If any institution is found eligible to receive such
aid, necessary payment shall be made within a further period
of four months from the date of such sanction.
(iv) The continued right of any institution to receive
any aid is to be considered keeping in view the relevant G.O.,
applicable from time to time.
(v) Similarly, in respect of minority institutions, which
were receiving aid in respect of some of the posts and were
seeking for approval and payment of aid for any additional
post, such question is required to be considered within a
period of four months by keeping in view the teacher-pupil
ratio applicable during any particular period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 of 26
(vi) If, on the other hand, any school or any post is
found ineligible for sanction of grant, such decision should
be communicated to the concerned institution by giving brief
reasons within a period of three weeks from the date of order
of refusal”. [Emphasis added]
12. In the meantime, by way of an amendment, the Tamil Nadu
Legislature introduced Section 14A to the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private
Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, which froze all new grants from the
academic year 1991-92 onward. Section 14 A reads as follows:
“14 A. Grant not payable to new private schools and new class
and course of instruction.- Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in
force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other
authority, no grant shall be paid to,-
(a)any private school established and any class or course
instruction opened in such private school, on or after the date
of commencement of the academic year 1991-1992;
(b)any private school in existence on the date of commencement
of the academic year 1991-1992 to which no grant has been
paid by the Government immediately before the date of such
commencement;
(c)any class or course of instruction in a private school in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 26
existence on the date of commencement of the academic year
1991-1992 to which no grant has been paid by the government
immediately before the date of such commencement; and
(d)any class or course of instruction opened on or after the
date of commencement of the academic year 1991-1992 in a
private school in existence on the date of such commencement.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, private school
includes a minority school.]”
13. This provision was upheld by a Division Bench in Maria Grace
Rural Middle School v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2007 (2) MLJ 497),
where the Court ruled that no educational institution has an inherent right to
receive financial aid, stating as follows:
“we hold that the impugned provision, viz…,section 14-A of the Tamil
Nadu Private Schools(Regulation) Act does not violate any of the
provisions of the Constitution and the same is constitutionally valid. Grant-
In-Aid is neither a fundamental right, nor a statutory right and it depends
upon the economic capacity of the State. There is no allegation or dispute
as to the fact that the Government is providing free education to the
children below 14 years. The particulars furnished show that no
Government School or Aided School is denied the right of imparting free
education to the children. The State Government, taking note of various
aspects including the fact that it has achieved Gross Access Rate in the year
2003-2004 itself in fulfilling the constitutional mandate of providing free
education to all children and that it is not in need of any more Private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11 of 26
Schools in its efforts to achieve the goal of providing free education, has
taken a policy decision not to grant aid to private schools established on or
after the academic year 1991-92. Inasmuch as the policy decisions are
exclusively within the executive domain and in the light of the facts and
figures furnished in the Annexures which we have referred to in the earlier
paragraphs, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the claim made by the
petitioners. Consequently, the writ appeals as well as writ petitions filed by
the Educational Institutions and others fail and they are, accordingly,
dismissed.”
14. Further, in 2018, the Tamil Nadu government replaced the 1973
Act with the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018, in which
Section 37 reaffirmed the grant-in-aid freeze. Section 37 of this new Act is
similar to Section 14A of the repealed 1973 Act, which reads as follows:
“ 37. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other
law for the time being in force or any judgment, decree or order of any
court or other authority, no grant shall be payable to ,-
(a) any private school established and any class, or course or medium of
instruction opened in such private school, on or after the date of
commencement of the academic year 1991-1992;
(b) Any private school inexistence on the date of commencement of the
academic on the date of commencement of the academic year 1991-1992 to
which no grant has been paid by the Government immediately before the
date of such commencement; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12 of 26
(c)Any class or course or medium of instruction opened on or after the date
of commencement of the academic year 1991-1992 in a private school in
existence on the date of such commencement.
Explanation: -For the purposes of this section, private school
includes a minority school.
15. The Chief Education Officer for Sivagangai District, (not before
this Court) through his proceedings (Na.Ka. No. 5269/A3/2018) dated
31.12.2018 assessed the staff strength for 2018-2019 and held only those
posts are eligible for staff grant and found that the second petitioner school
had no approved post for a watchman in respect of non-teaching staff. The
petitioners, despite being notified, chose not to contest this finding likely
because the present writ petition is already pending before this Court.
16. Notably, after the Division Bench’s directions dated 24.3.2008,
no specific relief was granted to the 1st Petitioner regarding the watchman
post. The directions issued were general instructions to the government.
However, while the matter was still pending before the Supreme Court, the
1st Petitioner filed W.P. No. 9007 of 2002, seeking for a direction to
sanction one post of watchman for the second petitioner school as well as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13 of 26
direction is grant a time scale of pay in that post from November 1987. This
Court, by order dated 15.03.2002, issued the following directions:
“ However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the strength of the school really warrants the sanction of
the post of Watchman and that in this case, several
representations have been forwarded on 15.07.1992,
02.09.1992, 04.11.1993,09.06.1994 and 08.11.1996.
It is up to the authorities to consider and pass
appropriate orders on the said representations and there is no
justification for unnecessary delay in the matter. The
representation as stated above have been made nearly about
ten years back, without any result.
With the result, there will be a direction to the petitioner
to forward a proper representation to the respondent 1 and 2
within a period of two weeks from today and on receipt of such
representation, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to dispose
of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.”
17. As can be seen from the above order, the Government never
sanctioned the watchman post at the 2nd Petitioner School nor approved the
appointment of the 1st Petitioner in the post of watchman. The Government
Order dated 24.07.1989 was issued solely due to an interim court direction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14 of 26
and under the threat of contempt proceedings. The temporary sanction of the
post was explicitly contingent on the outcome of W.P. No. 8799/88. The
Division Bench’s rulings dated 6.12.1990 and 24.3.2008 did not specifically
address the watchman position, nor did they grant the relief sought. The
instructions given were general in nature. In fact, apprehending the result of
that writ petition, the Petitioner chose to file a second writ petition. On
15.3.2002, a learned judge merely directed that the representation be
considered on merits and in accordance with the law.
18. Following the court's directive, both petitioners began submitting
various representations to the Respondents, urging the approval of the post
and the grant of a time-scale pay. In all their representations, the Petitioners
only requested the continuation of the post pursuant to the court's orders.
After persistently making representations for 15 years, the Petitioners filed
the current writ petition, seeking the regularization of the first petitioner's
service as a watchman and the payment of all associated service benefits,
emoluments, and arrears of salary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15 of 26
19. In the counter-affidavit submitted by the 2nd Respondent, it
was stated in paragraphs 5 and 7 as follows:
“ 5. …... as per the report of the committee constituted in
G.O.Ms.No. 495 Education Department dated 29.04.1991, and
on the guidelines in G.O.No. 340 Education Department dated
01.04.1992 the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.455 Education
(D1) Department dated 08.05.1992 on behalf of the 2nd
petitioner school. The question of further continuance of grants
for the posts sanction with reference to the interim orders
issued in W.P.No.8799 of 1998 was examined carefully by the
Government with reference to the directions in the High Court
Judgement dated 18.09.1990 in a batch of cases and on the
basis of the general orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 340 and 341
Education dated 01.04.1992, settling the norms to be followed
in the matter. Accordingly sanction was accorded to the
assessment of staff grant from 01.06.1991 for the CSI High
School Manamadurai for the following posts only.
1.Headmaster one
2.Tamil Pandit one
3.Junior Assistant one
4.Office Assistant one
In para 3 it was specifically instructed that the other posts
mentioned in para 1 for which the government have not
approved assessment, of grant from 01.06.1991 their costs will
have to be met by the management from its own funds if it wants
to continue them. The management was also free to disband
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16 of 26
them in its own discretion. Hence it is clear that the post of
watchman was not allowed and the management made its own
arrangement.”
6. …...
7. …...the norms fixed for the non teaching staff as per
G.O.Ms.No.340 and 341 dated for schools with IX and X One
Junior Assistant One Office Assistant or Watchman or Sweeper
cum Sanitary Worker. Hence one post of Junior Assistant and
one Office Assistant were sanctioned and therefore no other
post is available. The fact was already intimated to the
petitioner school. The petitioner has been appointed on self
finance basis and therefore is not eligible for any assessment of
grant.”
20. In the additional counter affidavit submitted by the 3rd
respondent, paragraphs 7 and 8 contain the following statements:
“ 7. ….. The claim of the petitioner was considered and the said
G.O.Ms.No. 455 was passed granting Headmaster, Tamil
Pandit, Junior Assistant and Office Assistant. This would be
evident from paragraph 1 and 2 of the said G.O. It is pertinent
to state that the school was granted Tamil Pandit instead of
watchman and now the school cannot claim to retain the post of
Tamil Pandit and also to claim the post of watchman.
The Honourable Court has considered the said section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17 of 26
14-A in a recent judgment in Rev, Appl (M.D) No 180/2018 and
has held the school is not eligible. Therefore the claim of the
petitioners from any angle is not justifiable and is totally illegal
and directly hit section 14-A”
21. The petitioner’s counsel in support of his contentions also relief
upon the following judgments from different learned judges regarding the
direction for the department to sanction a position and process salary
payments.
1. S. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(W.P.No. 15007 of 2010 dated 29.4.2022)
2. P.Nedumaran Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors
(W.P.No. 17592 of 2018 dated 20.3.2023)
3. P.Gnana Vs. The Govt of Tamil Nadu & Ors
(W.P.No. 17593 of 2018 dated 20.3.2023)
4. A.Navaraj Vs. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(W.P.No. 17594 of 2018 dated 20.3.2023)
22. The Learned AGP appearing for the Respondents submitted that
very similar directions were issued by the learned judges, despite the
amendment to the Act through the introduction of Section 14A, which
pertains to the sanction of post and grant of aid. This amendment was
challenged by the Government in Writ Appeal No. W.A (MD) No. 928/2017,
which was dismissed by a Division Bench. In response to this dismissal, the
state filed a Review Application, identified as Review Appln (MD) No. 180
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18 of 26
of 2018. The matter was subsequently heard by a Division Bench led by
Justice MM Sundresh (as he then was), and the review was allowed,
resulting in a judgment on 25.3.2021.
23. In paragraph No 23 and 24, the Bench held as follows:
“ Having regard to the above-settled position of law,
merely on the basis that some similarly placed institutions
were already granted grant in -aid illegally or by mistake, as
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, no one can claim equality.
Admittedly, in this case, recognition itself was granted on the
condition that no grant will be paid. Besides, the validity of
Section 14-A is upheld. The said facts were not taken by us into
consideration and the learned Single Judge. Merely because in
the earlier round of litigation the respondent succeeded in
making the petitioners to consider the request for grant-in-aid
not withstanding the voluntary undertaking given
acknowledging the non-entitlement of grant-in -aid, the rigor
of Section 14-A cannot be overlooked. The said provision does
not facilitate such a benefit. It also takes its sweep, those cases,
where orders were obtained from the Court. It is trite that Act
can be retrospective. In any case, the respondent does not have
the vested right, which is sought to be taken away.
Such view of the matter we are of the view that the
judgment, made in the writ appeal by us without considering
the scope of Section 14-A of the Act and the condition, on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19 of 26
which recognition was granted, is liable to be reviewed.
Accordingly, the review petition is ordered and the judgment of
the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside.”
24. The Division Bench also referred to the Supreme Court judgment
in the case of State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati, reported in 2019
(19) SCC 626. In that case, the Court determined that grant-in-aid cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. They also referred to another judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Odisha vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in 2011
(3) SCC 436 where the Court concluded that even if certain similarly
situated individuals received benefits inadvertently or by mistake, such
orders do not grant the petitioner any legal right to receive comparable
relief.
25. In this context, reference must be made to the judgment of the
Supreme Court, Kolavana Grama Vikas Kendra v. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2010 (1) SCC 133, which held that even a minority-run aided
educational institution must obtain prior approval before appointing a
person to any post. The Court observed as follows:
“ It would be perfectly all right for a minority institution to
select the candidates without any interference from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20 of 26
Government. However, the requirement of this prior approval
is necessitated because it is for the Government to see as to
whether there was actually posts available in the said
institution as per the strength of students and secondly;
whether the candidates, who were sought to be appointed,
were having the requisite qualifications in terms of the rules
and regulations of the Education Department.”
26. It is unusual that the 2nd Petitioner, as the employer of the 1st
Petitioner, has been litigating this issue for over three decades, having
jointly filed three writ petitions along with an additional one filed
individually by the 1st Petitioner. If the 2nd Petitioner school requires a
watchman, it is free to appoint one and bear the salary expenses. However,
merely being an aided institution does not entitle it to claim grants for posts
that have not been sanctioned. The limited sanction previously granted for
the watchman post was issued under an interim order of this Court,
explicitly contingent on the final outcome of the main writ petition.
27. The petitioners have not succeeded in their first writ petition to
claim any benefits. The facts of this first writ petition, which was included
in a batch of cases, were not addressed separately; instead, only general
directions were issued by the Division Benches, first in 1990 and then in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21 of 26
2008. It was wrong for the first petitioner to file another writ petition while
the matters were still pending before the Supreme Court. In that subsequent
writ petition, filed in 2002, the court directed the petitioner to make further
representations, which would then be considered by the respondents.
Therefore, from the beginning, the 2nd petitioner was aware that even if they
employed the 1st petitioner as a Watchman allegedly from 1987, they were
not eligible for any official sanction of the post or for grants associated with
such positions.
28. The 2nd Petitioner, despite being informed that the school was
granted a Tamil Pandit post instead of a Watchman, as per G.O.Ms. No.
455, and as stated by the 3rd Respondent in the counter affidavit a fact that
was not denied has suppressed a material fact before this Court.
29. It is important to note that the relationship between an employee
and the management in an aided educational institution remains strictly
between the management and the employee. The government, as the
provider of financial aid, does not assume the role of an employer. In this
context, reference must be made to the Supreme Court judgment in Anadi
Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevanandasswami Suvarna Jaya v. V.R.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22 of 26
Rudani, reported in 1989 (2) SCC 691, wherein the Court held as follows:
“ We are only concerned with the liability of the management
of the college towards the employees. Under the relationship of
master and servant, the management is primarily responsible
to pay salary and other benefits to the employees. The
management cannot say that unless and until the State
compensates, it will not make full payment to the staff”
30. The Petitioners have not made out any case for compelling the
Government to sanction a Watchman post or provide financial aid for the
position. Accordingly, the writ petition is misconceived and stands
dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, it is the obligation of the 2nd
Petitioner to ensure that if the 1st Petitioner has been employed as a
Watchman since 1987, the entire salary and other allowances due to him are
duly paid.
.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
av
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23 of 26
Copy to
1. The Secretary to Government,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Education Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
Secondary Education, D.P.I.College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The District Education Officer,
Collector Office Compound,
Sivagangai - 623 560.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24 of 26
DR. A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
av
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25 of 26
