IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.7.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA W.P.Nos.37713 of 2004, 10832 of 2005, 25146 of 2005, 25695 of 2005, 26059 of 2005, 26682 of 2005, 26690 of 2005, 26707 of 2005, 26711 of 2005, 26768 of 2005, 26845 to 26847 of 2005 27009 of 2005, 27047 of 2005, 27048 of 2005, 27050 of 2005, 27110 of 2005, 27167 of 2005, 27208 of 2005, 27324 of 2005, 27330 to 27333 of 2005, 27538 of 2005, 27539 of 2005, 27551 of 2005, 27569 of 2005, 27573 of 2005, 28279 of 2005, 28280 of 2005, 28377 of 2005, 28378 of 2005, 29042 of 2005, 29212 of 2005, 29214 of 2005, 29221 of 2005, 29224 of 2005, 29225 of 2005 and 29235 to 29237 of 2005 AND W.P.M.P.Nos.45267 of 2004, 11766 of 2005, 27543 of 2005, 29108 of 2005, 29121 of 2005, 29138 of 2005, 29143 of 2005, 28484 of 2005, 31944 of 2005, 31947 of 2005, 31960 of 2005, 31963 of 2005, 31965 of 2005, 31970 of 2005, 31972 of 2005 and 31974 of 2005 W.P.No.37713 of 2004: S.Merriton Zachari Raj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chenai-600006. 3.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 4.The Correspondent, Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents * * * W.P.No.37713 of 2004 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No.125 School Education (X2) Department, dated 12.11.2003 and the consequential order issued in G.O.Ms.No.4, School Education (X2) Department, dated 19.1.2004 and quash the same insofar as down grading P.G. Assistant post as P.G. Assistant Junior Grade and paying consolidated salary of Rs.4,500/= per month for five years period is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to pay regular P.G. Assistant Scale of pay to the petitioner from 20.11.2003 with all other benefits after adjusting a sum of Rs.4,500/= per month already paid from 19.1.2004. * * * For petitioner in W.P.37713/2004 : Mr.Sakthivel For petitioner in W.P.10832/2005 : Mr.K.Ravichandrababu For petitioners in : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel W.P.Nos.25695/05, M/s.FR.A.Xavier Arulraj 26682/05, 26690/05, 26707/05, 26711/05, 26768/05, 26845/05 to 26847/05, 27009/05, 27047/05, 27048/05, 27110/05, 27167/05, 27208/05, 27324/05, 27330/05, 27331 to 27333/05, 27538/05, 27539/05, 27551/05, 27569/05, 27573/05, 28279/05, 28280/05, 28378/05, 26059/05, 29042/05, 29212/05, 29214/05 29221/05, 29224/05, 29225/05, 29235/05 to 29237/05 and 25146/2005 For petitioner in WP.28377/05 : Mr.G.Sankaran For respondents/ : Mr.G.Masilamani, Government Advocate-General for of Tamil Nadu and Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, Education Department Spl.G.P.(Education) in all the W.Ps. For other respondents : No appearance * * * COMMON ORDER ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
All these writ petitions are filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.125 School Education (X2) Department, dated 12.11.2003 and the consequential order issued in G.O.Ms.No.4, School Education (X2) Department, dated 19.1.2004. In all these writ petitions, either the teachers themselves or their association are the parties and their contentions are either identical or similar. They were all appointed in the regular and sanctioned posts under various categories, in the respondent Schools, which are aided schools, in permanent vacancies arising out of retirement, resignation, migration, promotion, transfer, death etc. As stated earlier, in all these writ petitions, the contentions of the writ petitioners are either identical or similar. Hence, for the sake of convenience, we shall deal with the facts stated in W.P.No.37713 of 2005.
2. The petitioner submitted that he is an M.Sc. (Chemistry), B.Ed. and was appointed as P.G.Assistant Cheistry in TDTA Higher Secondary School, Kalian Karisal, Tuticorin, which was established and administered by CSI, Tirunelveli Diocese in an unsanctioned post and thereafter he was transferred to the fourth respondent School/Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai from 14.9.2003. Since one P.G.Assistant (Chemistry) viz. A.Subramanian working in the fourth respondent School retired on superannuation on 31.5.2003, the petitioner was selected and appointed in the said sanctioned post from 20.10.2003 and he is working as P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) in the fourth respondent School in an aided vacancy. It is submitted by him that even though he is appointed in a permanently sanctioned post from 20.10.2003, his appointment is approved only from 19.1.2004 and that too as Junior Grade P.G. Teacher (Chemistry) i.e. from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.4, School Education (X2) Department, dated 19.1.2004.
3. He submitted that from 19.1.2004, he was paid a consolidate pay of Rs.4,500/= per month on the basis of downgrading of the post by G.O.Ms.No.125, School Education (X2) Department, dated 12.11.2003 wherein it is stated that the Government downgraded all the posts arising due to retirement/death/resignation from 1.6.2003 in all aided schools and the Secondary Grade Teacher post would be downgraded as Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teacher and B.T. Assistant post as Junior Grade B.Ed. Teacher and P.G. Assistants as Junior Grade P.G. Assistant for five years and only after completion of five years, time scale pay admissible to the Secondary Grade/B.T. Grade and P.G. Grade Teachers will be paid to the respective teachers. It is further submitted that the third respondent, applying the said G.O., has chosen to compel the petitioner to execute the agreement on 20.10.2003 based on which the petitioner is paid consolidate pay i.e. Rs.4,500/= per month from 19.1.2004. Hence, he has fled the writ petition.
4. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The core contention of the Government is that in spite heavy financial crunch, in order to maintain quality of education, the Government has taken a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education (Budget) Department, dated 27.6.2003, to fill up the teacher posts arising on or after 1.6.2003 on a consolidate pay. It is also submitted on the part of the Government that consequent to the appointment of the teachers on consolidate pay, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.52, School Education, dated 1.6.2004, prescribing a lesser work load for the teachers appointed on consolidate pay than that of the regular scale incumbents. It is also submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.6.2006, whereby the teachers who have been appointed under G.O.Ms.No.100 on a consolidate pay have been brought into regular time scale of pay and the teachers in aided schools have also been brought into regular time scale of pay under G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.6.2006. It is submitted that the policy decision of the Government to redesignate all the teacher posts subsequent to 1.6.2003 as Junior Grade Teachers on consolidate pay has not been challenged. It is also submitted that the teachers appointed on consolidate basis, have entered into specific and individual agreements with the Government that they would work on consolidate pay for a period of five years and therefore, the petitioners are estopped from seeking regularization from their initial date of appointment in view of the specific undertaking given that they would work on consolidate pay from the appointment till the date of completion of five years of service and though they had bound themselves to work on consolidate pay for a period of five years, the Government on a sympathetic consideration had brought them into regular time scale of pay with effect from 1.6.2006. On such averments, the Government would pray to dismiss all these writ petitions.
5. Heard Mr.Sakthivel for the petitioner in W.P.No.37713 of 2004, Mr.K.Ravichandrababu, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10832 of 2005, Mr.G.Sankaran, counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28377 of 2005, Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for the petitioners in rest of the writ petitions and Mr.G.Masilamani, Advocate-General for the Government of Tamil Nadu.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would very well apply to the case on hand. It is their further contention that when, for the same work, other teachers, who are equally qualified as that of the petitioners but were appointed prior to the cut-off date 1.6.2003, are getting more pay scale, downgrading not only the stature, but also the pay scale of the petitioners amounts to discrimination. The learned counsel would further submit that as per the G.O.Ms.No.125, all such appointed teachers are considered to be on contract for five years, on a consolidate pay and then to be on probation for two more years in the regular time scale within a period of three years and thus, in effect, the petitioners are contract teachers, for almost seven years, during which period they have no service protection and all the petitioners being equally qualified as that of the regular teachers are doing equal work with that of the regular teachers, handling subjects for the students at the same level and hence they should also be given all benefits as that of the regular scale teachers. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further argue that financial crisis cannot be a ground for the Government to either put a ban on the appointment of teachers or to downgrade their pay, which would have the effect of denying the right to education to the pupil, which is enshrined under Article 21-A of the Constitution. Regarding the agreements entered into by the teachers with the Government, consenting for downgrading, the learned counsel would argue that the unemployed teachers were in a position of unequality of bargaining power, which cannot be taken advantage by the Government. On such grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray to allow all these writ petitions.
7. Mr.G.Masilamani, the learned Advocate-General has argued elaborately, taking us through various G.Os. issued by the Government, right from the time of imposing ban on appointments till the time the petitioners were inducted into the regular scale of pay. He has argued that even though there was huge financial crunch in the State, with a view to maintain quality of education, the Government has taken a policy decision to fill-up teacher vacancies on consolidate pay and prescribed lesser work load to the teachers appointed on consolidate pay. He has also argued that since lesser work load has been prescribed for the teachers appointed on consolidate pay, the argument advanced on the part of the petitioners for ‘equal pay for equal work’ has no role to play and since the petitioners are working in aided schools, if there is any deviation by the school managements regarding the working hours, they have to work out their remedy against the school managements only. He has specifically argued that the policy decision of the Government to fill up the vacancies on consolidate pay, issued in G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 27.6.2003, has not at all been challenged by the petitioners. He has also argued that none of the Government Teachers have challenged the action of the Government and only the teachers of aided schools have filed these writ petitions.
8. The learned Advocate General has also submitted that even though the individual teachers have entered into agreements with the Government, agreeing for consolidate pay, for a period of five years, the Government, after sympathetically considering their case, has issued G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.6.2006, bringing the teachers appointed on consolidate pay into the regular time scale of pay, even before the prescribed five years is lapsed. Regarding the argument advanced on the part of the petitioners about their lack of bargaining power at the time of appointment, which resulted in their entering into agreements with the Government, the learned Advocate-General has submitted that since the agreements have been entered into by the petitioners with full knowledge, they cannot be permitted to rake up the new point of lack of bargaining power. On such arguments, the learned Advocate General would pray to dismiss all the writ petitions.
9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the arguments advanced on either side, now we shall deal with various points urged on either side.
10. On a perusal of the entire materials placed on record, we are able to see that on the ground of effecting economy in expenditure, the Government has banned the filling up of vacant posts by G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.11.2001, except certain categories of posts such as Teachers, Doctors and Police Constables. Thereupon, pending decision to fill up the vacant teacher posts in all categories of schools, by the Government Letter No.11495/X2/2003-2, dated 26.5.2003, the Government has again ordered not to fill up the vacancies as on 1.6.2003 until issue of orders by Government in this regard. Aggrieved of the same, some of the school managements have filed W.P.No.18650 of 2003 etc. batch before this Court, which were allowed by this Court on 9.10.2003. In the meantime, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department, dated 27.6.2003, ordering that in view of the difficult financial position in the State, vacancies arising from the academic year 2003-2004 in various categories of teacher posts in all kinds of schools shall be deemed to have become as Junior Grade Teachers Posts and ordered to fill up the vacant posts on a consolidate pay for a period of five years in all categories of schools as follows:
Sl.No.
Category
Consolidated Pay to be paid
1
Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teacher (including Physical Education Teacher and Specialist Teacher) (For Nursery Montessori and Kinder Garden Junior Teacher Rs.2500/- p.m.)
Rs.3000/= p.m
2
Junior Grade B.Ed. Teacher (including Language Teacher)
Rs.4000/= p.m.
3
Junior Grade Post Graduate Assistant
Rs.4500/= p.m.
11. It has also been indicated therein that necessary amendment will be brought to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.100, the Government has issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.125 School Education (X2) Department, dated 12.11.2003, ordering necessary amendments to Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974. Thereafter, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.4, School Education (X2) Department, dated 19.1.2004, giving further orders regarding filling up of teacher posts in aided schools as follows:
“i. The instruction issued in Govt. Letter No.11495/X2/2003-2, School Education Department, dated 26.5.2003 and subsequently by the Director of School Education, Director of Elementary Education in Rc.No.45914/W6/2003, dated 26.5.2003 and in Rc.No.25678/H1/2002, dated 26.5.2003 respectively will have no effect hereafter.
ii. While filling up the vacancies available as on 1.6.2003 in the aided schools in a consolidate pay for a period of 5 years, the rule of reservation will be started afresh.
iii. Vacancies available as on 1.6.2003 in the aided schools will be filled up by both consulting employment exchange and through some other modes like newspaper publication advertisement media, calling for the application by notifying the same in the notice board and consider all applications and selection the best candidates from among them without there being any preference to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange.
iv. The consequential vacancies arising on account of promotion/migration/ transfer/death/resignation etc. are to be filled up through direct recruitment on a consolidated pay only.
The procedure regarding rule of reservation and consulting employment exchange in respect of minority schools will be issued separately. Until then, the existing procedure will continue….”
12. It is to be pointed out that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department, dated 27.6.2003, ordering that in view of the difficult financial position in the State, vacancies arising from the academic year 2003-2004 in various categories of teacher posts in all kinds of schools shall be deemed to have become as Junior Grade Teacher Posts and ordered to fill up the vacant posts on a consolidate pay for a period of five years in all categories of schools. Only consequent to this G.O., both the impugned Government orders have been issued. But, this G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department, dated 27.6.2003, which is the base for both the impugned G.Os. to come into existence remained unchallenged and the petitioners have filed these writ petitions, only challenging the consequential G.Os. issued by the Government. On this short ground alone, all these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. However, with a view to give a quietus to the entire issue, we shall now proceed to discuss various issues raised on either side.
13. Coming to the aspect of ‘financial crunch’ urged on behalf of the Government in resorting to appointing the Teachers on consolidate pay from 1.6.2003, it has been time and again held by the Honourable Apex Court that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date by the Government while providing benefits for employees. In STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. AMRIT LAL GANDHI [(1997) 2 SCC 342], the Honourable Apex Court has held that:
“Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason.”
14. In T.N.ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. R.VEERASAMY [(1999) 3 SCC 414], the Honourable Apex Court has held that ‘financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis.’
15. In RAMRAO vs. ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS [(2004) 2 SCC 76], the Honourable Apex Court has held that ‘even for the purpose of effecting promotion, fixing of a cut-off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 of the Constitution’. Moreover, the Honourable Apex Court has also held that ‘possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not make cut-off dates violative of Article 14.’
16. In STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs. AMARNATH GOYAL AND OTHERS [(2005) 6 SCC 754], the Honourable Apex Court has held that
“Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level. In the present case, the cut-off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, the contention that fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14, is liable to be rejected.”
17. In view of the above judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, there is no doubt that financial crisis is a valid ground for the Government for such matters involving financial burden on the Government. In all these matters, it has been submitted by the Government that about 40,000 teachers were appointed during the period 2003-2004 on a consolidate pay and if the relief as sought for by the petitioners is acceded to, the financial implication on the Government will be to a tune of Rs.1,440/= crores. In the case on hand, admittedly, only considering the financial crunch and having realised that the very appointment of the teachers cannot be dispensed with because of the financial crisis, the Government was constrained to order filling up of the vacant teacher posts on and from 1.6.2003 on consolidate pay. As has already been pointed out supra, this decision of the Government, issued under G.O.Ms.No.100, was never under challenge and only the consequent orders passed by the Government are challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Therefore, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced on the part of the petitioners that financial crisis cannot be a ground for the Government. As a result, the decision of the Government to effect appointment of teachers on consolidate pay on and from 1.6.2003, cannot at all be faulted with. Therefore, it has to be held that the Government is well within its powers in passing orders to appoint the teachers on and from 1.6.2003 on consolidate pay.
18. Next, coming to the aspect of ‘equal pay for equal work’ urged on behalf of the petitioners, we feel it appropriate to quote a recent judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in S.C.CHANDRA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS [(2007) 8 SCC 279], wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held:
“The principle, “equal pay for equal work” must satisfy the test that the incumbents are performing equal and identical work as discharged by employees against whom the equal pay is claimed. The persons who claimed the parity should satisfy the court that the conditions are identical and equal and same duties are being discharged by them.”
“Fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment, etc. and it has a cascading effect.”
“Two groups of employees may be doing the same work, yet they may be given different pay scales if the educational qualifications are different. Also, pay scale can be different if the nature of jobs, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment etc. are different. Thus, in State of Haryana VS. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123, it was held that the principle can only apply if there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Even if the employees in the two groups are doing identical work, they cannot be granted equal pay if there is no complete and wholesale identity e.g. A daily-rated employee may be doing the same work as a regular employee, yet he cannot be granted the same pay scale. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because nature of work is same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply.”
19. In the case on hand, the petitioners would claim that they are having the same qualifications as that of the teachers appointed on regular scale and are also performing the same duties, carrying same responsibilities, but however, they are being paid only a consolidate pay, which is arbitrary.
20. But, as could be seen from the materials placed on record, the Government, considering the fact that the teachers are appointed on consolidate pay on and from 1.6.2003, has issued G.O.Ms.No.52, School Education, dated 1.6.2004, prescribing lesser work load for them than that of the regular scale incumbents. As could be seen from these particulars, while the regular teachers in 1st to 5th standards must handle 35 periods per week and they must remain upto the closure of the school, the teachers appointed on consolidate pay must handle a maximum of 25 periods per week and they are permitted to take rest in the morning and 7th period in the evening of each day in School. Likewise, while the regular teachers in 6th standard to +2 course, should handle a minimum of 17 hours per week, besides involving in the extra curricular activities and should remain in the school till the closure, the teachers appointed on consolidate pay have to handle a minimum of 14 hours of work per week and that they need not be involved in any extra curricular activities of school and that they are permitted to leave the institution as and when the work assigned by the head of the Institution for each day is completed and they need not remain in the school till closure of the school. Thus, there is no doubt that the teachers appointed on consolidate pay are provided with lesser work load than that of the regular scale incumbents.
21. However, the petitioners, who are all working in aided schools, would submit that they are more burdened than that of the regular scale incumbents. In support of their arguments, the petitioners would furnish workload information issued by the concerned aided schools to them. As could be seen from the copy of the workload information, furnished in W.P.No.37713 of 2003, the petitioner therein was directed to handle 28 periods per week, besides other responsibilities, as against the norms prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 1.6.2004. It is to be pointed out that none of the petitioners are serving in the Government schools, but are serving in the aided schools. When the Government has specifically issued orders, providing lesser work load to the teachers appointed on consolidate pay than that of the regular scale incumbents, if there is any violation of the same by the aided school managements, the petitioners should have explored their legal remedies against such school managements. The orders issued by the aided school managements to the petitioners, contrary to the specific orders issued by the Government, does not pave way for them to claim that they are bearing more work load than that of the regular scale incumbents and hence they must also be paid the equal scale to them. Thus, since, there is much difference in the work load and the responsibilities being carried on by the regular scale incumbents and the petitioners, who are being paid consolidate pay, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has no role to play in this case. Therefore, even on this ground, the petitioners fail.
22. Then, coming to the aspect of entering into the agreements by the petitioners with the Government agreeing for the consolidate pay for five years, it has been strenuously argued on the part of the petitioners that the petitioners are in a position of unequality of bargaining power, which is the result of great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in S.PAPPA AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [1999 (3) MLJ 347], wherein the learned single Judge has held as follows:
“At the time of passing the impugned Government Order, even according to Government, there were thousands of qualified trained secondary grade teachers waiting for employment. In such a situation, they have no other option except to accept and abide by all conditions mentioned in the agreement. Even though the said agreement is to be executed by the school management and the teacher, the terms and conditions have been drafted and formulated by the Education Department of the Government. Undoubtedly, the unemployed teachers are in a position of unequality of bargaining power which is the result of great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. In other words, among the two, one of the parties namely, the secondary grade (junior) teacher is a weaker party and he has no choice but to give his assent to a contract and to sign the same in token of his acceptance, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules. Asking the weaker party to execute an agreement which contains unconscionable clause is void and not binding. In such a situation, this Court is competent to strike down the unfair and unreasonable terms in the agreement entered into between the parties who are not equal in bargaining power.”
Admittedly, as against this judgment of the learned single Judge, an appeal is pending. Therefore, we cannot go into the merits and demerits of this decision of the learned single Judge.
23. In the case on hand, as has already been held supra, only owing to the financial crunch, the Government has decided to appoint the teachers on consolidate pay for a period of five years, which decision of the Government remained unchallenged. As a consequent to the said decision, the petitioners have entered into individual agreements with the Government, agreeing for the consolidate pay. But, in all fairness, even before the said period of agreement lapsed, since the financial con dition of the State has improved, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 27.6.2006, whereby the teachers who have been appointed under G.O.Ms.No.100, on a consolidate pay have been brought into regular time scale of pay, including the teachers in aided schools. This action of the Government needs to be appreciated. In these facts and circumstances, wherein the Government, which was being commented as a stronger party to the agreement as against weaker parties to the agreements, viz. the petitioners, itself has come down and has extended the benefit of regular time scale to the petitioners, even before the lapse of five years period, we do not find any justification in the grounds urged by the petitioners.
For all these reasons, we see no ground to entertain these writ petitions. Accordingly, all these writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Rao
To
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600009
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chenai-600006.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli