The State of Tamil Nadu v. School Voice Association

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WA No

s .1374

of 2026 and 3625

of 202

and

CMP N

os .12636

of 2026 and

29930

of

W.A.No.1374 of 2026:

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The Director Of School Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶3The Director Of Private Schools DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. Appellant(s) Vs All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society No.9, North Jegannathan Nagar, 1st Street, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. Rep by its Chairman, I.Manoharan Jeyakumar S/o. Issac Respondent(s) W.A.No.3625 of 2025:

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶2The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary To Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶3The State Project Director Samagra Shiksha Abiyan, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶4The Director of School Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶5The Director of Private Schools DPI Campus, College, Chennai - 600 006. Appellant(s) Vs School Voice Association No.7/74, Ritherdon Road Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 rep by its General Secretary M.J.John Arokia Prabhu S/o.G.Mariya James (Late) Respondent(s) PRAYER in W.A.No.1374 of 2026

: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21045 of 2023. PRAYER in W.A.No.3625 of 2025

: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34233 of 2023. For Appellant(s) in both appeals: Mr.R.Veeramani Government Pleader For Respondent(s) in both appeals: Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) These intra-court appeals, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the common order dated

12.9.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶2The respondents/writ petitioners had filed the writ petitions challenging G.O.(Ms) No.99, School Education Department, dated

2.6.2023, which specified the 'Per Child Expenditure' (PCE) under Section 12(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, for the academic years 2022-2023 to 2025-2026. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to decline any interference with the said policy decision, thereby expressly upholding the validity of G.O.(Ms) No.99, dated 2.6.2023. However, while disposing of the writ petitions with certain directions, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 22 of the impugned order, inter alia, directed as follows: "22. ... The State Government is directed to Redo the entire exercise for re-fixing the Per Child Expenditure for the upcoming academic years commencing from 2025-2026 onwards." [emphasis supplied]

¶3Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that once the learned Single Judge found no reason to interfere with the policy decision of the State and upheld the validity of G.O. (Ms) No.99, which legally holds the field and fixes the PCE up to the academic year 2025-2026, the subsequent direction to redo the exercise commencing from the very same academic year 2025-2026 is ex facie erroneous and operates as an anomaly. It is argued that any such fresh exercise can only logically trigger from the succeeding academic year, i.e., 2026-2027.

¶4Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners sought to justify the impugned order, arguing that the reduction of components in calculating the PCE from fifteen to three had severely impacted private unaided institutions and, therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redo the computation from 2025-2026 onwards was balanced and subserved the ends of justice.

¶5We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and scrutinized the materials on record.

¶6Though learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that no steps have been taken by the appellants even in respect of the year 2025-2026 and nothing has been paid till date, we are not inclined to entertain the said submission in the appeals preferred by the Government. In our considered view, a benefit cannot be gratuitously extended in favor of the respondents in the appeals preferred exclusively by the Government, especially when the respondents have accepted the principal findings of the court below.

¶7Moreover, we find substantial force in the contention raised by learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants. A reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the learned Single Judge unequivocally validated G.O.(Ms) No.99. Since the said Government Order comprehensively delineates the Per Child Expenditure for a four-year block period concluding with the academic year 2025-2026, the direction to recompute the expenditure for the very same period is unsustainable. The timeline directed by the court must harmoniously co-exist with its own finding of validity. Therefore, the direction to redo the exercise must necessarily be prospective, commencing only upon the expiration of the current block period covered under the upheld Government Order.

¶8As a sequel, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 22 of the impugned order requires to be modified to the limited extent of rectifying this chronological mismatch. The upcoming academic year for the fresh exercise must be read as 2026-2027, instead of 2025-2026.

¶9In the light of the aforesaid observations, these writ appeals are partly allowed only to the extent that the direction issued to the State Government in Paragraph 22 of the impugned order to "Redo the entire exercise for re-fixing the Per Child Expenditure" is clarified and modified to the effect that the said exercise shall commence for the upcoming academic year from 2026-2027 onwards, instead of 2025-2026. The rest of the common order passed by the learned Single Judge remains undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected interim applications are closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

08.07.2026 Index : : sasi THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(sasi) WA No

s .1374

of 2026 and 3625

of 202

08.07.2026