Judgment :- By consent of both pasties, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to sanction one B.T. Grade Headmaster, two Tamil Pandit posts and one Physical Education Teacher post to the petitioner school. 3. The case of the petitioner is that Adi Drevida School, Ramaiyanpatti, was established as Primary School in the year 1942 and it is an aided minority school. The school was permitted to be upgraded as middle school in the year 1977 and the chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, passed an order on 19. 1992 and granted permanent recognition to the petitioner school as middle school. According to the petitioner school, it is not collecting any fee and it is giving free education to the children less than 14 years. The school was upgraded as High school in the year 2001 without aid. 4. According to the Petitioner, on 10. 2005, the 4th respondent found that the school is having 410 students in middle school sections i.e., 159 for standard 6; 131 for standard 7; 120 for standard 8; and fixed the divisions as 4+3+3 and sanctioned the posts of hinge secondary grade Teachers and one craft instructor. The said staff fixation having been not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.525 Education, dated 211. 1997, which came into force from 6. 1998, petitioner filed W.P (MD) No.9308 of 2008 and prayed for sanction of one B.T. grade Headmaster, two Tamil Pandits and one Physical Education Teacher. The Madurai Bench of this Court directed the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner management dated 110. 2006 and pass orders within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, details furnished by the 4th respondent from the petitioner management through his proceedings dated 11. 2006 and after furnishing the same, 4th respondent forwarded the same to the second respondent through his proceedings Na.Ka. 8703/A5/06 dated 00.11.2006. In the said details furnished by the 4th respondent before the second respondent, it is stated that the school is entitled to have 11 Secondary Grade Teacher posts for standards 6 to 8; two Tamil pandits and one Physical Education Teacher, of which only 10 Secondary Grade Teacher posts are sanctioned and the additional requirements are one Secondary Greed teacher post, two Tamil Pandits and one physical education teacher. It is also stated in the said report that the school is entitled to have one B.T. Assistant post as no Headmaster post is sanctioned. However, the first respondent through letter No. 37610/D1/2006-1, dated 1. 2007 sent a reply to the petitioner management stating that no decision is taken by the Government to sanction additional posts to aided schools in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education department, dated 211. 1997 and only after the decision is taken by the Government additional post could be sanctioned to the petitioner school. Hence petitioner has filed the above writ petition contending that the petitioner school having been granted recognition and full aid from standards 1 to 8; the respondents are bound to sanction required number of posts for the recognized and aided standards. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that due to want of finance the Government is unable to sanction additional posts and the schools opened after 1991-1992 are not entitled to get grant in said as per section 14A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Privates Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the said amendment has also been upheld by this Court and for the Schools opened prior to 1991-1992 also additional posts could not be sanctioned as it involves financial commitment covering the entire Tamil Nadu with the limited financial resources and the Government could not move fresh commitment in spite of sanction of additional teacher posts. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as additional posts could not be sanctioned due to financial constraints. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 7. (a) Whether the financial constraints could be a ground to deny sanction of eligible posts to aided schools and colleges was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 634 (CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. RAJNI ALI). In paragraphs 6 and 10 the Supreme Court held as follows: “6. ….. Imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. In line with this principle, the State has enacted statutes and framed rules and regulations to control/regulate establishment and running of private schools at different levels. It is a constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. In line with this principle, the State has enacted statutes and framed rules and regulations to control/regulate establishment and running of private schools at different levels. The State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. It needs no emphasis that appointment of qualified and efficient teachers is a sine qua non for maintaining high standards of teaching in any educational institution”. 7. …… 8. ….. 9. ….. 10. Coming to the contention of the appellants that the Chandigach Administration will find it difficult to bear the additional financial burden if the claim of Respondents 1 to 12 is accepted, we need only say that such a contention raised in different cases of similar nature has been rejected by this Court. The State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources. It is for the authorities running the Administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose. We do not deem it necessary to consider this question in further detail. The contention raised by the appellants in this regard is rejected.” (b) The said judgment of the Supreme Court is followed by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 (Director of Elementary Education V.S. Vigile). (c) I had occasion to consider similar issue in the decision reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 242 (C. Manonmony v. State of Tamil Nadu) and allowed similar writ petition following the judgment of the Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court. 8. In the light of the above categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this Court and the decision of mine reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 242 (C. Manomony v. State of Tamil Nadu) the stand taken by the respondents to deny sanction of posts to the petitioner school on the ground of financial constraints cannot be sustained. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 9. The writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to sanction one B.T. Assistant post, two Tamil Pandit posts and one Physical Education Teacher posts to the petitioner school with effect from 6. 2008 i.e., from the academic year 2008-2009. The first respondent is directed to sanction the said posts as directed above within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No. costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.