JUDGMENT :- 1. The two petitioners are working under the 5th respondent School. They filed the present Writ Petitions challenging the order of the 1st respondent State Government made in G.O.Ms.Nos.8 and 9 School Education Department dated 6.1.2009. 2. The Writ Petitions were admitted on 15.4.2009. Pending the Writ Petitions, in the application for interim stay, only notice was ordered. On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent Joint Director of School Education (Vocational Education) has filed a counter affidavit dated 'nil' (2009). 3. In G.O.Ms.No.8, the State Government based upon the report of the High Level Committee on Vocational Education and after examining the report and accepting the recommendations, directed the Director of School Education to initiate follow up action on the basis of the said recommendations. In Annexure to the said G.O., the case of the recommendations were set out. In para VIII of the Annexure, it was stated that no Teacher should be appointed at this stage till the revised system of Vocational Education is fully finalised. In para VII of the annexure, it was stated that in respect of unviable courses run by the schools, the Schools in which there are 15 or less students should be wound up. Likewise in G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education Department dated 6.1.2009, the follow up order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.8 was issued by the State Government and in para 1 of the said order, it is stated that no new Vocational Courses should be started from the academic year 2007-2008 and no new vocational Instructor should be appointed either by the School management or PTC and any opening of the Vocational course should be only with the permission of the State Government. In paragraph 1.ii of the said order, it is stated that the School specific, unpopular courses should be wound up. The Director of School Education was directed to assess the utility of the courses in which the students strength is found to be less than 15 and he was directed to close down such unviable courses. 4. The contentions raised by the two petitioners as reflected in the affidavit filed by them were that the said order is ex facie arbitrary and liable to be set aside by this Court. The two Government Orders are also contrary to the earlier orders issued by the State Government, namely G.O.Ms.No.128, School Education Department dated 12.6.2007. 4. The contentions raised by the two petitioners as reflected in the affidavit filed by them were that the said order is ex facie arbitrary and liable to be set aside by this Court. The two Government Orders are also contrary to the earlier orders issued by the State Government, namely G.O.Ms.No.128, School Education Department dated 12.6.2007. A reference was made to the committee constituted under G.O.128, which suggested the introduction of Vocational Course. It is also claimed that a course like Electrical Motor rewinding was conducted for the last 30 years in the 5th respondent School with different student strength ranging from 13 to 27 with an average of 18 to 20 for the last 20 years. It is also claimed that under G.O.46 dated 14.5.2004, the minimum number of students for the vocational stream in the rural area is only 10. Therefore, fixation of students strength is invalid. 5. As opposed to the stand taken by the petitioners, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the reference to G.O.Ms.No.46, School Education Department dated 14.5.2004 is misconceived and the 5th respondent School is situated in Tiruchy Corporation area and the minimum number of students required for vocational stream is only 20. It is also open to the students and the teacher, who relates to the Vocational classes, if the courses are discontinued, to enter into the other Schools where similar courses are conducted. The Government on the question of expenditure incurred had taken a policy decision to fix the norms and guidelines for the Aided Private School in order to ensure good governance. It is also claimed that no one can compel the Government to continue the courses with the lowest number of students. The Government has also vested right to fix norms and guidelines for continuing any course. It is also claimed that before taking the decision, a high power committee has been appointed and these recommendations are reflected in the impugned Government Orders. 6. In this context, it is necessary to refer to Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act,1973, wherein the Government has got power to make Rules regulating the number, qualifications and conditions of service of Teachers and other persons working in the School. In exercise of the said powers, the State Government has framed Rules, namely Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. In exercise of the said powers, the State Government has framed Rules, namely Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Under Rule 15 (1), the number of Teachers and other persons employed in a Private School shall not exceed the number of posts sanctioned by the Director of School Education, with reference to the academic requirements, the teacher-pupil ratio and overall financial consideration. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioners to contend that notwithstanding the Government proposing to discontinue the unviable courses, the Government should be directed to continue such courses only to accommodate the persons like the petitioners. In fact the employer and employee relationship lies between the petitioners and the 5th respondent School and the Government is only a grant in aid authority. Therefore having accepted the employment in a Private School, the petitioners cannot compel the State Government either to continue such courses or to pay grant, even if the Government decides to discontinue such grants. 7. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others vs. V.R.Rudani and others reported in ( 1989 2 SCC 691 ) and the Supreme Court in paragraph 19 held as follows: "We are only concerned with the liability of the management of the college towards the employees. Under the relationship of master and servant, the management is primarily responsible to pay salary and other benefits to the employees. The management cannot say that unless and until the State compensates, it will not make full payment to the staff. We cannot accept such a contention." 8. Even otherwise, the Legislature has introduced Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, whereby the State Government has restricted its aid to the Private Schools only for courses which are started upto 1991-1992. 9. Under the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions. However, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent stated that for this academic year, they are already running the course and during the mid academic year, the students cannot be allowed to send away and therefore they may be allowed to continue the course till the end of the academic year till 31.5.2012. However, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent stated that for this academic year, they are already running the course and during the mid academic year, the students cannot be allowed to send away and therefore they may be allowed to continue the course till the end of the academic year till 31.5.2012. While disposing of the Writ Petitions, the official respondents are directed to permit the 5th respondent School to run the vocational courses till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.5.2012 and thereafter any commitment to the 5th respondent School will cease in terms of the G.O. With the above direction, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.