Judgment : The petitioner is a daughter of one Pappudoss, who was working as a Teacher in the third respondent-School. Unfortunately, he passed away on 11.6.1995 leaving the family in distress. Thereafter, the petitioner sent an Application to the Government for appointing her on compassionate basis. The said Application was also forwarded by the Management. However, Assistant Educational Officer, Thanjavur, by proceedings dated 25.3.1996 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that there is no rule or order of the Government providing for compassionate appointment in the Aided Private Schools. 2. Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for petitioner produced Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 986, Education (D2) Department, dated 22.10.1991, wherein it is clearly stated as follows: “ 4. ….. The Government have decided that the orders issued in the Government Order second read above in respect of staff of Aided Schools under the School Education Department both teaching and non- teaching relating to compassionate appointments which is effective from 17.12.1983 be made applicable with effect from 3.8.1977 (sic) as in the case of Government Servants subject to the following conditions: i. the dependents of staff of Aided Schools including teaching and non-teaching staff of the Aided Schools irrespective of the Schools. ii. Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1579, Labour and Employment, dated 27.7.1981 are applicable to the dependents of deceased staff of Aided Schools (both teaching and non-teaching) who die in harness irrespective of the date of death of the staff of Aided Schools (both teaching and nonteaching)…….” Therefore, the premises on which the Assistant Educational Officer rejected the request of the petitioner is clearly wrong. 3. However, the third respondent-School has filed a counter affidavit where in paragraph 9, they have stated as follows: “…The allegations in para 13 of the affidavit are not true. There are no vacancies at present in the third respondent-School. It is submitted that the said School is owned and administered by the Diocese of Thanjavur. The Diocese has got separate Rules and Regulations regarding the appointment of teachers. The respondents 1 and 2 cannot interfere in the appointments to be made by the third respondent. The petitioner is not put to any difficulty, if the third respondent appoints the teachers. The relief asked in para 14 of the Affidavit cannot be granted. The petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief…..” 4. The respondents 1 and 2 cannot interfere in the appointments to be made by the third respondent. The petitioner is not put to any difficulty, if the third respondent appoints the teachers. The relief asked in para 14 of the Affidavit cannot be granted. The petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief…..” 4. Admittedly, the third respondent-School is a Minority Management and no person can be thrust on the said School merely on the basis of the Government Order. The petitioner cannot get any relief in view of the stand taken by the third respondent. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the third respondent- School is a Minority Management, they cannot be allowed to escape from the obligations imposed by the Government Order, which provides for appointment of a legal heir on compassionate ground. For this purpose, learned counsel relies upon the decision of 11 Judges Bench of the Supreme Court reported in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 . Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to paragraphs 72, 73, 107, 137, 138 and 144 of the said decision in support of the point that the minorities are also bound by any reasonable regulations and therefore, the Government Order is to be implemented. I am unable to subscribe to the view, because, while the State has powers to prescribe regulations with reference to the qualification and appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff, the rights of the Minority Management with regard to the manner and mode of appointment, can never be curtailed merely on the ground that aid is being granted to the institution concerned. Therefore, I am unable to subscribe to the contentions raised by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.