Partly allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. School Voice Association

Madras HC8 Jul 2026/3625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed against a Single Judge order upholding G.O.(Ms) No.99 fixing Per Child Expenditure but directing a fresh computation from 2025-2026. Holding that direction conflicted with the finding of validity of the Government Order covering a block period ending 2025-2026, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeals, modifying the redo exercise to commence from 2026-2027.

What did the court decide?

Direction in paragraph 22 modified: PCE re-fixation exercise to commence from academic year 2026-2027 onwards; rest of impugned order undisturbed; no costs; interim applications closed.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs School Voice Association — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.07.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶8

WA Nos .1374 of 2026 and 3625 of 2025 and CMP Nos.12636 of 2026 and 29930 of 2025

¶9

W.A.No.1374 of 2026:

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu

¶11

Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

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

¶13

The Director Of Private Schools DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶14

Appellant(s)

¶15

¶16

All India Private Schools Legal Protection Society No.9, North Jegannathan Nagar, 1st Street, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

¶17

Rep by its Chairman, I.Manoharan Jeyakumar S/o. Issac

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

_______________ Page 1 of 8_

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶22

W.A.No.3625 of 2025:

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

The Director of Private Schools DPI Campus, College, Chennai - 600 006.

¶28

Appellant(s)

¶29

¶30

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)

¶31

Respondent(s)

¶32

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.

¶33

_______________ Page 2 of 8_

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶36

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.

¶37

For Appellant(s) in	Mr.R.Veeramani
both appeals:	Government Pleader
For Respondent(s) in	Mr.G.Sankaran
both appeals:	Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

¶38

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶39

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶40

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.

¶41

The 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 20252026. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to decline any interference with the said policy decision, thereby _______________ Page 3 of 8_

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶44

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:

¶45

"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 ."

¶46

[emphasis supplied]

¶47

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants

¶48

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.

¶49

Page 4 of 8

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶52

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶53

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.

¶54

We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and

¶55

scrutinized the materials on record.

¶56

Though 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.

¶57

Page 5 of 8

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶60

Moreover, 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.

¶61

As 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.

¶62

Page 6 of 8

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶65

In 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.

¶66

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected interim applications are closed.

¶67

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 08.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶68

_______________ Page 7 of 8_

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

W.A.Nos.1374 of 2026 etc.

¶71

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

¶72

(sasi)

¶73

WA Nos .1374 of 2026 and 3625 of 2025

¶74

08.07.2026

¶75

_______________ Page 8 of 8_

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The State of Tamil Nadu v. School Voice Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. School Voice Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Latif Estate Line India Limited Vs Ramani Yesupatham and 3 others

G.Ramesh Kannan Vs The Registrar General, High Court of Madras

B.Mathivanan Vs E.Saravanvelraj and 6 others

G.Sudeesh Vs the Chairman

Anbu Nagar Residents Welfare Association Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kovai Kilakku Mavatta Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal