Educational institutions do not have an inherent right to receive financial aid; such aid is contingent upon compliance with statutory provisions and the economic capacity of the state.

JUDGMENT :

A.D.Maria Clete, J.

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 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.

4. The facts leading to the current writ petition are as follows: The 1^st petitioner is employed as a watchman by the 2^nd 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 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 1^st respondent Governm