JUDGMENT : S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.No.2080, Education (D3) Department, dated 14.09.1977, issued by the first respondent, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and a discriminative act and consequently declare the Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment) Rules, 1977 as inoperative in the face of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner, party-in-person, submitted that as per the common order of this Court, dated 17.12.1975, rendered in batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.4478 of 1974 etc., this Court has held that certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, (herein after referred to as "the Rules"), have practically created problems to the minority educational institutions. It cannot be disputed that minority could be either a religious minor or linguistic minority and their right is protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner/party-in-person, in his writ petition, has stated in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit, as follows: "To sum up, we declare as inapplicable to minor institutions Sections 8(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 12(a), 14 to 18, 21(2) to 26, 31 to 33, 39(4), 41 to 45 and rules 7 and 9, except clauses (3) and (k) of sub-rule (2), Rules 10 to 14, 16 to 18 and 22 to 24.", as found by the Division Bench in the judgment, dated 17.12.1975 and argue before this Court that the impugned Government Order could be declared unconstitutional, as stated by him." The relief sought for by the petitioner is to quash the Rules. 3. Per contra, Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, drew the attention of this Court to Page No.115 of the typed-set of papers filed by him, which is a copy of the common order dated 10.10.2012, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4478 of 1974 and other writ petitions. Learned Special Government Pleader also drew the attention of this Court to page No.125 of the typed-set. Learned Special Government Pleader also drew the attention of this Court to page No.125 of the typed-set. As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the writ petitioner herein was a party to the common order passed by the Division Bench, as per Sl.No.89 and stated as T.N. Vidyanandan, (Retired Headmaster, Sourashtra Higher Secondary School, Madurai) and also Review Applicant in Rev.Appn.28/2008. At Page No.135, the prayer relating to the Review Application is available, which reads as follows: "Rev.28/08: Review application filed under order XVII Rule 1 r/w Sec.114 CPC and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this court passed in W.P.8201/07 dated 5.8.2008 filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus Directing the respondents to take up suitable steps to implementation of sections 8(1)(a), 11(1)(b), 12(1), 14 to 18, 21 (2), 22 to 26, 31 to 33, 39(4) & 41 to 45 of the T.N. Act 29/74 and Rules 7, 9 except clauses (e) and (k) of sub Rule (2) Rules 10 to 14, 16 to 18 and 22 to 24 & framed under the act and also for speedy steps for the implementation of the regulation framed in the Act governing service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff of minority schools for whom aid is provided by the state and thus render justice, so that the minority school teachers may leave a of relief atleast now after three decades." 4. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the review petition filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, by its common order dated 10.10.2012. The petitioner/party-in-person, however, drew the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court, rendered in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, on 31.10.2002, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 and submitted that the Rules being subordinate legislation, cannot over-ride the statute, however, according to him, as per the impugned Government Order, the respondents have made an attempt to supersede the statute. 5. The aforesaid argument advanced by the party-in-person was considered even in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case – (2002) 8 SCC 481 , and it was also referred to by the Division Bench in the common order passed on 10.10.2012, as stated above. 5. The aforesaid argument advanced by the party-in-person was considered even in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case – (2002) 8 SCC 481 , and it was also referred to by the Division Bench in the common order passed on 10.10.2012, as stated above. The order reads that on the date of final hearing, the learned Advocate General filed an affidavit sworn by the third respondent, the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary). The Division Bench has referred paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said Affidavit, which read as follows: "12. An announcement has been made to form one Common comprehensive Act to govern all the private schools, in the light of the Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 introduced by the State Government and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2003 introduced by the Central Government. 13. It is submitted that it is a matter of time, before the present law is replaced with a new one. The position that is being followed for the last 37 years, that is non-applicability of certain provisions of the said Act and the Rules, 1974 to the Writ Petitioners in SLP (Civil) Nos.1521-56 and 3042-91 of 1979 by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Court, dated 17.12.1975, shall be retained for the present." 6. Though the review petition filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of along with other connected writ petitions by the Division Bench, specific direction was given to the respondents to maintain status-quo as on the date of the said common order of this Court, dated 17.12.1975, till the new comprehensive Act comes into force. It is not in dispute that the order passed on 10.10.2012 has reached its finality and therefore the Government has to pass a comprehensive Act and it cannot be expected to maintain status-quo indefinitely. However, the same would not create any new right in favour of the writ petitioner, who was the review petitioner pertaining to earlier writ petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the order passed on 10.10.2012 has reached its finality and therefore the Government has to pass a comprehensive Act and it cannot be expected to maintain status-quo indefinitely. However, the same would not create any new right in favour of the writ petitioner, who was the review petitioner pertaining to earlier writ petition. 7. Though the petitioner/party-in-person has stated that the Rules framed under the statute cannot over ride the statute, he has not specifically pointed out anything to struck down the Rules or the Government Order which overrides the statute as alleged by the petitioner and further when he was a party to the earlier proceeding even after the disposal of his review petition, which had reached finality, again cannot file another writ petition stating that earlier he had challenged only certain portions of the Rules and in the present writ petition challenging the entire Government Order and the Rules. It is well settled that a second round of litigation is not legally maintainable and the same cannot be encouraged. Therefore, having gone through the averments made in the accompanying affidavit and the material papers available and the decisions cited by both sides, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, having considered the fact that status-quo is being maintained by the respondents for decades together, without passing a comprehensive Act, to meet the ends of justice, we direct the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, to take steps in order to pass a comprehensive Act, in the manner known to law, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.