{"id":111584,"date":"2005-12-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005"},"modified":"2015-04-23T06:50:12","modified_gmt":"2015-04-23T01:20:12","slug":"aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 23\/12\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM         \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN        \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.17732 of 1999    \n\nand WRIT PETITION NOS., 1983, 23514, 25369 &amp; 25370 of  2001,  286,  503,  520,  \n521,  523  to  525,  526,  674  to 676, 3022, 3923, 6594, 13023, 23389, 23625,\n29588, 29775, 29838, 29893, 29978, 30305, 30440, 32100, 32916 to 32919, 33552,  \n34149, 35103 to 35105, 35386, 35405, 35745, 36767, 37020, 37441, 38250, 39134,  \n39405, 39854, 39858, 39859, 39906, 41974, 42308, 44608, 44759,  45226,  45514,  \n45515,  46680 to 466 83 of 2002, 159, 160, 855 to 858, 1272, 1632, 4371, 6229,\n6822, 7079, 7853, 8993, 9299, 9857, 9858,  9991,  9993,  9994,  10038,  10057,\n10292, 10609, 11295, 14439, 14440, 14757, 19903 and 34658 of 2003  \nand connected WPMPs.,   \n..\n<\/pre>\n<p>W.P.No.674 of 2002:\n<\/p>\n<p>Aided Elementary School<br \/>\nT.  Puthur, T.V.  Puthur P.O.<\/p>\n<p>Virudhachalam Taluk 606 110<br \/>\nRep.  By its Secretary<br \/>\nR.  Ponnusamy.                                  ..  Petitioner<\/p>\n<p>-Vs-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  State of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nRep.  By the Secretary to<br \/>\nGovernment, Education Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Director of Elementary Education<br \/>\nCollege Road, Chennai 600 006.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The District Elementary Educational<br \/>\nOfficer, Cuddalore.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Assistant Elementary Educational<br \/>\nOfficer, Virudhachalam.                 ..  Respondents<\/p>\n<p>                Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\npraying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  C.  Selvaraju, Sr.Counsel<br \/>\nWP.38250\/02             For Mr.  S.  Mani<\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  A.  Jinasenan<br \/>\nWps674 to 676\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Ms.  T.  Ananthi<br \/>\nWP.503\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  J.  Sundar<br \/>\nWP.13023\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  R.  Ganesan<br \/>\nWP.29588\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  K.  Srinivasan<br \/>\nWP.29775\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  Jagadish Chandra<br \/>\nWP.32916\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  V.  Kathiravan<br \/>\nWP.33552\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  Suresh Viswanath<br \/>\nWP.35103\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  Isaac Mohanlal<br \/>\nWP.35405\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  S.Silambanan<br \/>\nWP.35745\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  K.V.  Subramanian<br \/>\nWP.37020\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  G.  Jeremiah<br \/>\nWP.39405\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  R.  Santhanam<br \/>\nWP.39906\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  V.  Venkatasamy<br \/>\nWP.42308\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  Srinath Sridevan<br \/>\nWP.45514\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  S.  Giridharan<br \/>\nWP.44608\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  N.  Paul Vasanthakumar<br \/>\nWP.39858\/02 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  R.  Dharmaraj<br \/>\nWP.10292\/03 etc.  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  S.N.  Ravichandran<br \/>\nWP.6229\/03 etc. <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  K.S.  Kumar<br \/>\nWP.7079\/03 etc. <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mrs.  G.  Thilakavathi<br \/>\nWP.11295\/03  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  A.  Ilango<br \/>\nWP.1983\/01 etc. <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  P.  Rajendran<br \/>\nWP.3022\/02 etc. <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  T.S.  Sivagnanam<br \/>\nWP.30440\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  Ajmal Khan<br \/>\nWP.8993\/03  <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Mr.  M.  Chidambaram<br \/>\nWP.4371\/03 etc. <\/p>\n<p>For petitioner in :  Ms.  R.T.  Shyamala<br \/>\nWP.39134\/02  <\/p>\n<p>For respondents in :  Mr.  R.  Muthukumarasamy<br \/>\nall the WPs.,           Addl.  Advocate General<br \/>\n                        Assisted by<br \/>\n                        Mr.  V.  Karthikeyan<br \/>\n                        Addl.Govt., Pleader (Edn.)<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<br \/>\n(Order of the Court was made by P.  SATHASIVAM,J.)   <\/p>\n<p>                Since  the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and<br \/>\nthe same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The  above  batch  of  writ  petitions  have  been  filed<br \/>\nquestioning  the  orders  passed  by  the  educational  authorities  directing<br \/>\ndeployment of teachers found  surplus  in  the  respective  schools  based  on<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.  No.525 Education Department, dated 29.12.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   The  facts leading to filing the above writ petitions are<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)The writ petitioners are either the respective school  managements  or  the<br \/>\ndeployed teachers,  who  question  the  orders  passed by the authorities.  On<br \/>\n29.12.1997, the Government  had  issued  orders  in  G.O.Ms.    No.525  School<br \/>\nEducation,  prescribing  revised  norms for sanctioning the required number of<br \/>\nposts in the Elementary \/ Middle \/  High  and  Higher  Secondary  Schools  for<br \/>\npurposes of  aid.    The  writ  petitions are mostly related to Elementary and<br \/>\nMiddle Schools, to which the norms for sanction of required number of posts of<br \/>\nteachers are common.  As per the aforesaid Government Order, the teacher-pupil<br \/>\nratio, 1:40 was required to be followed with a minimum of  2  secondary  grade<br \/>\nteachers upto  the strength of 80.  The Government Order further provided that<br \/>\nfor every additional strength of 40 students,  one  post  of  secondary  grade<br \/>\nteacher will  be  sanctioned.   The order further directed that the third post<br \/>\nwill be sanctioned when the student strength reaches 100 and  the  fourth  and<br \/>\nsubsequent post will be sanctioned for every addition of 40 students.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)The  Government Order and the directions issued by the Government stipulate<br \/>\nthat the strength of the students will be examined by taking into account  the<br \/>\naverage attendance  for  the month of August.  It was further provided that in<br \/>\nthe event of there being excessive teachers,  the  surplus  teachers  will  be<br \/>\ndeployed to the neighbouring schools.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)The aforesaid Government Order was questioned in a batch of writ petitions.<br \/>\nBy  order  dated  06.10.1998,  this  Court  upheld  the  validity of the above<br \/>\nGovernment Order.  Writ  Appeals  (W.A.No.1768  of  1998  etc.,  batch)  filed<br \/>\nagainst the said orders were also dismissed by order dated 09.11.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   It  is  brought to our notice that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.525 was<br \/>\ndirected to take effect from 01.06.1998.  On account of the  pendency  of  the<br \/>\nwrit  petitions  and  thereafter the writ appeals, no action could be taken to<br \/>\nimplement the Government Order till 09.11.20 00.  After the dismissal  of  the<br \/>\nwrit appeals,  action  was  taken  to  implement  the Government Order.  After<br \/>\nascertaining the average attendance of students in August, 2001,  orders  were<br \/>\nissued  by  the educational authorities deploying the excess teachers wherever<br \/>\nfound, to the neighbouring schools.  Those  orders  were  challenged  in  this<br \/>\nbatch of writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   While  disposing  of the writ appeals, the earlier Division Bench<br \/>\nhas taken note of  a  circular  issued  by  the  educational  authorities  and<br \/>\nobserved that schools will be entitled to a third teacher when the strength is\n<\/p>\n<p>81.   The  said  circular  issued  in  1998  was plainly inconsistent with the<br \/>\nGovernment Order and the said circular was rescinded even in  December,  1998.<br \/>\nHowever,  the  Division  Bench,  while rendering judgment in the writ appeals,<br \/>\ntook note of the said circular and observed that schools with student strength<br \/>\nof more than 80 would be entitled to a third teacher when the strength  is  81<br \/>\nand thereafter  one teacher for every additional 40 students.  In this regard,<br \/>\na clarification  petition,  viz.,  WAMP.No.5667  of  2003  was  filed  by  the<br \/>\nGovernment,  was  heard by a Division Bench, which ultimately passed orders on<br \/>\n12.05.2004, clarifying the order passed in the writ appeals to the effect that<br \/>\nthe third teacher will be sanctioned only when the student strength is 101 and<br \/>\nthereafter the school will be entitled to one teacher for every addition of 40<br \/>\nstudents, viz., 140, 180, 220, etc.<\/p>\n<p>        6.  It is the case of the petitioners that the educational authorities<br \/>\nhad implemented the Government Order strictly from August 2001 by taking  into<br \/>\naccount the provisions contained in the said Government Order and they did not<br \/>\ntake  note  of the circular issued by the authorities in February, 1998, which<br \/>\nwas rescinded even in December, 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The contention of the  writ  petitioners  in  the  batch  of  writ<br \/>\npetitions is twofold.\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)Firstly,  they  contend  that since the Division Bench judgment in the writ<br \/>\nappeals had referred to the entitlement of a third teacher  when  the  student<br \/>\nstrength is 81, which had been corrected in the clarification petition in 2003<br \/>\nonly,  the impugned orders passed in 2001 or 2 002 should be set aside and the<br \/>\nauthorities should be directed to perform a re-exercise by testing the student<br \/>\nstrength as of August 2005 and pass fresh orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)Secondly, having  regard  to  the  fact  that  there  had  been  change  of<br \/>\ncircumstances  by  efflux of time as there would have been retirement etc., of<br \/>\nthe existing teachers who continued on account of stay orders, it is just  and<br \/>\nnecessary  that  a  re-exercise  is  to  be  done  so that the student and the<br \/>\nteachers strength as on August 2005  be  taken  into  account  before  passing<br \/>\nappropriate orders  by the authorities.  It is further contended that by doing<br \/>\nthis exercise there will be no prejudice caused to anybody.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.  So far as the first  contention  is  concerned,  the  observation  by  the<br \/>\nDivision  Bench  judgment to the effect that the schools will be entitled to a<br \/>\nthird teacher when the student strength is 81 was based on  a  circular  which<br \/>\nwas  rescinded  even  in  02.12.1998  and  having  regard to the fact that the<br \/>\nauthorities had implemented only the Government Order  strictly  according  to<br \/>\nits  terms  from  August,  2001, there is no necessity to perform the exercise<br \/>\nagain.  Further, the clarification petition  and  the  order  passed  did  not<br \/>\naffect  the impugned orders, since the impugned orders were passed strictly on<br \/>\nthe basis of the  Government  Orders,  according  to  which  the  schools  are<br \/>\nentitled  to  a  third  teacher  only  when  the  student  strength is 101 and<br \/>\nadditional teacher for every additional strength of 40.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   With  regard  to  second  contention,  even  though   the<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.525 came into effect from 01.06.1998, it could not be implemented on<br \/>\naccount  of  pendency of writ petitions and writ appeals till November, 200 0.<br \/>\nAfter the dismissal of  the  writ  appeals,  the  Government  Order  had  been<br \/>\nimplemented  by  taking  into account the strength of students in August 2001.<br \/>\nIt is perfectly valid, since the Government Order has been upheld and the same<br \/>\nhad been implemented in accordance with law and therefore no exception can  be<br \/>\ntaken by  the  petitioners.    The  fact  that  there has been increase in the<br \/>\nstrength of students subsequently  or  number  of  teachers  has  dwindled  by<br \/>\nretirement, etc.,  cannot be a ground to invalidate the impugned order.  It is<br \/>\nalso the submission of the Government that in  the  event  of  any  particular<br \/>\norder   being   incorrect  and  inconsistent  with  the  Government  Order  in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.525, they  had  been  corrected  by  appropriate  orders.    As  the<br \/>\nGovernment  Order  has  been  upheld  finally  and  that  the  Government have<br \/>\nimplemented the Government Order strictly in accordance with  its  terms,  the<br \/>\nimpugned orders cannot be invalidated and the respondents need not be directed<br \/>\nto re-do the exercise.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   In all the writ petitions, the petitioners, viz., School Managements and<br \/>\nthe Teachers are having no grievance regarding the order of the Government  in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.525 Educational  Department  dated  29.12.1997.   According to them,<br \/>\nwhile ascertaining the Teacher-Pupil  strength,  the  educational  authorities<br \/>\nhave failed  to  consider  various  aspects.    As  rightly pointed out by the<br \/>\nlearned Additional Advocate General, the earlier Division Bench,  particularly<br \/>\nin   the   clarificatory   order  dated  12.05.2004,  explained  that  as  per<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.525, the Teacher -Pupil ratio is 1 :  40 and  only  when  the  pupil<br \/>\nstrength  is 80, second teacher post will be sanctioned and likewise, when the<br \/>\nstrength is 1 00, 3rd teacher post will be sanctioned and the 4th teacher post<br \/>\nat 1 40, 5th teacher post at 180 and  so  on.    We  have  also  verified  the<br \/>\nimpugned  orders  passed  by  the  various  educational authorities and we are<br \/>\nsatisfied that they were passed strictly on the basis of the Government Order,<br \/>\naccording to which the schools are entitled to third  teacher  only  when  the<br \/>\nstudent  strength is 101 and an additional teacher for the additional strength<br \/>\nof 40 students.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  The other contention that the Educational Authorities failed to  consider<br \/>\nthe  change  of  circumstances  by efflux of time, viz., retirement, voluntary<br \/>\nretirement, death,  etc.,  is  concerned,  we  are  of  the  view  that  after<br \/>\nverification, if student strength is found increased, it is always open to the<br \/>\nschool  authorities  to  highlight  the  same  to  the  concerned  educational<br \/>\nauthority \/  authorities  by  placing  acceptable  materials.    If  any  such<br \/>\nrepresentation  is  made  supported  by  acceptable  evidence,  it  is for the<br \/>\neducational authority \/ authorities to consider and pass  appropriate  orders,<br \/>\nmodifying their earlier decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   Under  these  circumstances,  we  do  not  find  any  valid  ground  for<br \/>\ninterference in the orders of the respondents.  We are satisfied that all  the<br \/>\norders  have  been  passed based on G.O.Ms.No.525 Educational Department dated<br \/>\n29.12.1997, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of  this  Court.    As<br \/>\nsaid  earlier,  in  the case of retirement, voluntary retirement or death of a<br \/>\nteacher and if there is any increase in pupils strength, the school management<br \/>\nis free to represent the same to the educational authority  and  if  any  such<br \/>\nrepresentation  is  made, the concerned educational authority is duty bound to<br \/>\npass appropriate orders, after inspection and verification.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  It is brought to our notice that in all the  writ  petitions,  by<br \/>\nvirtue  of  interim  orders  granted by this Court, the deployed teachers were<br \/>\nallowed to continue in the same schools.   Considering  the  interest  of  the<br \/>\nstudents  studying  in the respective institutions, we permit all the teachers<br \/>\nconcerned to continue if they so desire in the respective schools till the end<br \/>\nof April, 2006.  It is made clear that the respondents are free  to  implement<br \/>\ntheir orders from 01.05.2006 onwards.\n<\/p>\n<p>        With the  above  observations,  the  writ petitions are dismissed.  No<br \/>\ncosts.  Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<br \/>\nkh<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to<br \/>\nGovernment, State of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nEducation Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Director of Elementary Education<br \/>\nCollege Road, Chennai 600 006.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The District Elementary Educational<br \/>\nOfficer, Cuddalore.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Assistant Elementary Educational<br \/>\nOfficer, Virudhachalam.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/12\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN WRIT PETITION NO.17732 of 1999 and WRIT PETITION NOS., 1983, 23514, 25369 &amp; 25370 of 2001, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-23T01:20:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-23T01:20:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2012,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-23T01:20:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-23T01:20:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-23T01:20:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005"},"wordCount":2012,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005","name":"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-23T01:20:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aided-elementary-school-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aided Elementary School vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}