K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the final order made in W.P(MD)No.100 of 2011, dated 15.06.2016.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 before the Writ Court are the appellants. The respondent herein as Writ Petitioner, challenged the order of the Director of Elementary Educational Officer, dated 10.08.2010, wherein and whereby, the claim of the Writ Petitioner for grant-in-aid to the Writ Petitioner's School was rejected on the reason that the school management had already given an undertaking that the school will not claim grant-in-aid in view of Section 14(A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973. Consequently, the Writ Petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to sanction and release forthwith the grant-in-aid towards staff salary for the teaching and non-teaching posts in the Writ Petitioner/School.

3. It was contended by the Writ Petitioner before the Writ Court that denial of grant-in-aid to the Writ Petitioner/School by placing reliance under Section 14(A) of the said 'Act' is not justifiable, since the Writ Petitioner's School was initially established as Primary School during the year 1987 itself and subsequently, it was upgraded as Middle School during the year 1997 and therefore, the Writ Petitioner/School is entitled to get grand-in-aid. It was also urged before the Writ Court that the undertaking furnished by the Writ Petitioner/School at the time of granting recognition cannot be a bar for considering the claim for grant-in-aid.

4. The respondents before the Writ Court contended that the Writ Petitioner/School having given an undertaking, that it would not claim any grant-in-aid at any time in future, is not entitled to seek such relief against such undertaking.

5. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties and by following the decision of the Division Bench made and reported in 2008 (4) MLJ 289 (G. Sahadevan Nair v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others) and also another decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of C. Manonmony v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 242 allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order. The Writ Court also directed the respondents 1 and 2 therein to pass necessary orders in sanctioning and releasing the grant-in-aid towards staff salary for teaching and non-teaching staffs for the Writ Petitioner/School from the year 1987.

6. Challenging the above decision of the Writ Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the respondents 1 to 4. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants mainly contended that at the time of granting recognition to the Writ Petitioner's school, specific condition was imposed on the Petitioner not to claim grant-in-aid and such condition was never challenged by the Writ Petitioner at any point of time. Therefore, he contended that, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to the relief of grant-in-aid, in view of the undertaking given by them. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that there is delay in approaching the Court for seeking the relief. He further contended that Section 14(A) of the said 'Act' was upheld by this Court and therefore, the Writ Petitioner cannot seek the relief as a matter of right.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Writ Petitioner submitted that the embargo put under Section 14(A) of the said 'Act' cannot be applied to the Writ Petitioner's case, more particularly, when the Writ Petitioner's School was initially established as a Primary School in the year 1987 itself, much earlier to the academic year 1991-1992, being is the cut-off period to apply Section 14(A) of the said 'Act'. He further submitted that the appellants cannot discriminate the Petitioner which they have chosen to extend the grant-in-aid to the similarly situated persons. He further submitted that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this reported in (2008) 4