ORDER : (W.P.(MD)No.3817 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order of direct payment passed by the fourth respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.641/Aa3/2018 dated 20.02.2018 in respect of petitioner School. W.P.(MD)No.8226 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to make direct payment to the employees of the third respondent School Governed by the second respondent. W.P.(MD)No.9708 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to consider the writ petitioner's application/representation dated 18.02.2019 for approval of Form VII of the Ilanji Kalvi Sangam for the period 2019 – 2022 and pass appropriate orders within a time stipulated by this Court and pass such other further orders that may deemed to be fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. W.P.(MD)No.13221 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3233/Oo/2019 dated 28.05.2019 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the second respondent/Competent Authority to accept the Form VII of the Ilanji Kalvi Sangam for the period of 2019 – 2022 and pass appropriate orders within a time stipulated by this Court. (Prayer amended vide order dated 01.10.2019 made in W.M.P(MD)No.17771 of 2019)) 1. This common order will dispose of these four writ petitions which arise out of a broad common factual matrix. 2. All these four writ petitions were listed together at the request of all counsel concerned and all these four writ petitions were heard out together with the consent of all counsel concerned. Likewise, with consent of all counsel concerned in these four writ petitions, main writ petitions were heard out and are now being disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, these four writ petitions, namely W.P.(MD) Nos.3817 of 2018, 8226, 9708 and 13221 of 2019 shall be referred to as 'I-WP, II-WP, III-WP and IV-WP' respectively. 4. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, these four writ petitions, namely W.P.(MD) Nos.3817 of 2018, 8226, 9708 and 13221 of 2019 shall be referred to as 'I-WP, II-WP, III-WP and IV-WP' respectively. 4. Broad factual matrix containing facts that are imperative for appreciating this order (sans unnecessary details and particulars) are as follows: (a) Nucleus of these four writ petitions on hand is a Society which goes by the name 'The Ilanji Educational Society' (hereinafter 'said society' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity). (b) Said society was registered under a Central Act, namely The Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has the registration No.1/1918-19. After the advent of 'The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Act 27 of 1975)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'TN Societies Act' for brevity, said society became a society registered under the TN Societies Act inter-alia by operation of Section 53 of TN Societies Act. (c) Said society runs an educational institution, i.e., a school which goes by the name 'Ramaswamy Pillai Higher Secondary School' (hereinafter 'said school' for brevity). Said school is an aided non minority private school. (d) Said society is constituted by 49 members according to writ petitioner in I-WP, whereas according to writ petitioner in II-WP, it is constituted by 51 members. (e) Said society is governed by a set of bylaws. According to these bylaws, an Executive Committee consisting of 9 members in all, 8 elected and 1 hereditary, shall be elected/appointed for triennium periods, i.e., once in three years. Last triennium for which Executive Committee was elected is 2016-19. To be noted, there is no disputation in this regard. The Executive Committee for the triennium period which is now underway, i.e., 2019-22 is subject matter of dispute in II-WP, III-WP and IV-WP. (f) Said school run by said society is governed by 'The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974)' (hereinafter referred to as 'TN Private Schools Act'). In exercise of rule making power under section 56 of the TN Private Schools Act, a set of rules which go by the name 'The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974' (hereinafter referred to as 'TN Private Schools Rules') have been put in place and it is obviously a piece of subordinate legislation. In exercise of rule making power under section 56 of the TN Private Schools Act, a set of rules which go by the name 'The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974' (hereinafter referred to as 'TN Private Schools Rules') have been put in place and it is obviously a piece of subordinate legislation. It follows that TN Private Schools Act and TN Private Schools Rules are applicable to said school run by said society. (g) Therefore, post election of Executive Committee for triennium period of said society in accordance with TN Societies Act, the District Educational Officer under the TN Private Schools Act should approve the school committee. This is under section 15 of TN Private Schools Act read with Rule 12 of TN Private Schools Rules. As far as the committee for triennium 2016-19 are concerned, there is no dispute that jurisdictional District Educational Officer (Tirunelveli District in this case) approved the school committee on 26.04.2016. (h) The genesis of these writ petitions is a 'First Information Report' ('FIR' for brevity) which came to be registered on 09.11.2017 on a complaint by one of the students in said school against a teaching staff. The FIR bears No.476 of 2017 and is on the file of Courtallam Police station and the FIR has been registered inter-alia under Sections 10, 12 and 21(2) of the Protection of Child From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. (i) Referring to aforesaid FIR, School Education Department issued a 'Show Cause Notice' ('SCN' for brevity) dated 16.02.2018 and passed an order on 20.02.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.641/Aa3/2018 ordering direct payment regarding salary, etc., This order dated 20.02.2018 has been called in question in the I-WP and the same shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order in I-WP' for the sake of clarity. (j) One Gomathi Nayagam, one of the members of said society filed a suit being O.S.No.2 of 2019 vide plaint dated 28.12.2018 in District Munsif Court, Senkottai, assailing a notice convening General Body Meeting, but this was withdrawn on 01.02.2019 giving a quietus. Though this has no impact or bearing on writ petitions on hand, this is being set out only for complete narration of facts. (k) When things stood as above, when I-WP was pending, said society issued a notice dated 18.01.2019 convening a General Body Meeting on 17.02.2019. Though this has no impact or bearing on writ petitions on hand, this is being set out only for complete narration of facts. (k) When things stood as above, when I-WP was pending, said society issued a notice dated 18.01.2019 convening a General Body Meeting on 17.02.2019. This was assailed by one of the members (writ petitioner in II-WP) by way of a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2748 of 2019. This writ petition was listed for admission before a Division Bench and a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2019 dismissed the writ petition negativing the challenge to the notice convening the General Body Meeting and held that it is open to writ petitioner (writ petitioner in II-WP) to approach the jurisdictional civil Court and also held that if the jurisdictional civil court is so approached, the Civil Court shall decide/resolve the dispute uninfluenced by observations made in that order. Thereafter, the General Body Meeting was held on 17.02.2019 and Executive Committee was put in place. (l) Alleging that Executive Committee was not elected in accordance with bylaws and that it was put in place by mere proposing and seconding without an election, writ petitioner in II-WP filed one more writ petition being W.P. (MD)No.5106 of 2019, but withdrew the same on 06.03.2019. After withdrawal of this writ petition also, writ petitioner in IIWP filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge's Court, Tenkasi on 13.03.2019 with various prayers which shall be alluded to infra. It is the case of the writ petitioner in the II-WP that this suit was filed in accordance with order dated 08.02.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.2748 of 2019. This civil suit is pending and there are no interim orders. (m) After all these events, on 04.04.2019, II-WP came to be filed by same writ petitioner with a prayer to mandamus the District Educational Officer to make direct payments to employees of said school. To be noted, while the impugned order in I-WP which is also regarding direct payment came to be passed essentially based on grounds relatable to the aforementioned FIR, this prayer for direct payment is predicated on disputation regarding election of school committee for current triennium 2019-22. To be noted, while the impugned order in I-WP which is also regarding direct payment came to be passed essentially based on grounds relatable to the aforementioned FIR, this prayer for direct payment is predicated on disputation regarding election of school committee for current triennium 2019-22. (n) When things stood as above, said society represented by its Secretary filed III-WP seeking to mandamus the District Registrar of Societies to approve Form-VII under TN Societies Act, on 22.04.2019. Pending III-WP, the Deputy Inspector of Registration, Tirunelveli sent a communication to jurisdictional District Registrar holding that no forms shall be taken on record owing to pendency of suit being O.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sub court, Tenkasi. This is vide communication dated 28.05.2019 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.3233/Oo/2019. (o) Assailing this communication, IV-WP was filed by the Secretary of said society on 11.6.2019. 5. Broad factual matrix set out supra has been set out in such a manner that facts are chronicled. 6. With regard to I-WP, learned counsel for writ petitioner assailed the impugned order in I-WP on three main grounds and they are as follows: (a) The impugned order in I-WP has been passed in unholy haste, as the SCN came to be issued on 16.02.2018, which is a Friday and the impugned order in I-WP was passed on 20.02.2018 giving a very little time to react, more so when the SCN was predicated on four grounds. (b) Impugned order in I-WP has been passed without holding enquiry and without giving opportunity of personal hearing to noticee, which according to writ petitioner is unholy haste. (c) Impugned order in I-WP could have been passed only under special circumstances and no special circumstances in the cases on hand exist. In support of this plea, it was pointed out that there are only three provisions under TN Private Schools Act which provide for such interference and they are sections 18-A, 34 and 53-A, besides Rule 11 of TN Private Schools Rules. 7. Learned counsel for writ petitioner in II-WP made submissions which are broadly as follows: (a)The Executive Committee of said society has been put in place without any election with regard to current triennium, i.e., 2019-22. (b) Writ petitioner in II-WP has locus as he is a member of said society which is not in dispute. 7. Learned counsel for writ petitioner in II-WP made submissions which are broadly as follows: (a)The Executive Committee of said society has been put in place without any election with regard to current triennium, i.e., 2019-22. (b) Writ petitioner in II-WP has locus as he is a member of said society which is not in dispute. To be noted, this is an argument which is by way of response to writ petitioner's argument in I-WP that writ petitioner in IIWP does not have locus to seek mandamus for direct payment. (c) An interim order has been obtained in IV-WP by suppressing an order made by the District Educational Officer being order dated 31.5.2019 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1232/Aa3/2019, which according to learned counsel for writ petitioner in II-WP is a direct payment order. 8. Learned State counsel for Department of School Education and authorities thereunder including District Educational Officer submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed. Learned State counsel for School Education Department submitted that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed in I-WP is the sheet-anchor submission of official respondents. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit read as follows: '7. It is submitted that due to the incident of sexual harassment given to the girl students, and due to the inaction of the petitioner school against the Headmaster who is responsible for the welfare of the students studying in the school, and for the reason that the petitioner was himself one among the accused as noted in the F.I.R. it was decided to cancel the orders issued to the Secretary of School Committee with effect from 20-02-2018 and under these special circumstances, it was decided to bring the school under the direct payment in the absence of Secretary, for the welfare of the teachers and to bring peaceful atmosphere among the students in the school. Accordingly the school was brought under the direct payment by an order dated 20-02-2018 made in Na.Ka.No.641/AA3/2018 of the 4th respondent. 8. It is also submitted that in view of the cancellation of the Secretary ship by the competent authority, the petitioner is not in position as the Secretary. It is for the Educational Agency to select another Secretary and send for the approval of the 4th respondent. Without challenging the cancellation of the Secretary the petitioner school cannot challenge the orders of direct payment. It is for the Educational Agency to select another Secretary and send for the approval of the 4th respondent. Without challenging the cancellation of the Secretary the petitioner school cannot challenge the orders of direct payment. It is submitted that with regard to the direction of the competent authority to disburse salary directly by the Educational authority to the teachers, the following conclusion of R.Jayasimha Babu, J. in a decision reported in Kandasamy, P. v. The District Educational Officer, etc., 1996 Writ L.R. 439 is very relevant and the same is also extracted hereunder: On an over all consideration of all the facts it is quite clear that there are special circumstances which justified an order being made directing the payment of the salary to the teaches by the authorities directly. The aid given is meant for the teachers. There is no vested right in the petitioner to obtain amounts from the State. Petitioner is not deprived of any right by the direct payment of salaries. It is in the interest of the institution and of the teachers which are far more important and these interests are well served by the impugned order. In respect of GROUNDS a to f all grounds are denie. The orders have been issued in the interest of students, teachers and to maintain healthy atmosphere in the school campus for which the petitioner school is expected to cooperate. In view of the above position there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is not maintainable.' 9. Likewise, Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate, who is the State counsel for Registration Department and also for the officials thereunder, including District Registrar (Administration) submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed and paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed in IV-WP is the crux of the Registration Department's stand. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of Registration Department reads as follows: '4.I submit that the averment in Para-9 of the Writ Petition is true. The Civil Case in O.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, is pending adjudication and the matter remains subjudice and hence the 1st Respondent herein has passed an order in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3233/C/2019 dated 28.05.2019 thereby informed the 2nd Respondent herein from approving the Form VII submitted by the Writ Petitioner herein on the Ground that O.S.No.117 of 2019 is pending adjudication and subjudice. And hence the prayer in the present writ Petition set out in Para 2 in the Writ Petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the Writ Petitioner has also stated about the pendency of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.9708 of 2019 for the same Mandamus Relief sought in the present Writ Petition in Para 12 of the Affidavit hence the present writ petition is not maintainable.' 10. Having set out the broad factual matrix inter-alia by making a chronicle of facts followed by encapsulated narrative of rival and respective submissions of learned counsel concerned, this court is of the considered view that II-WP, III-WP and IV-WP fall in one basket, whereas the I-WP falls in a separate basket. 11. Notwithstanding the mass of facts, pleadings, it is clear that IIWP, III-WP and IV-WP can be disposed of by taking a simple approach. 12. As would be evident from the narrative thus far, writ petitioner in II-WP has filed a civil suit in the jurisdictional civil court being O.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi. From the copy of the plaint which has been placed before this court as part of case file, it comes to light that prayer in the said suit reads as follows: “TAMIL” 13 As alluded to supra, aforesaid suit has been filed pursuant to observations made by a Hon'ble Division Bench. As the order is that of a Hon'ble Division Bench and as the suit has already been filed in accordance with the view taken by a Hon'ble Divison Bench, parties will have to necessarily await the outcome of the said suit. A conjunctive perusal of the prayer in said suit, which has been extracted and reproduced supra and the issue that falls for consideration in II-WP, III-WP and IV-WP will reveal that it is imperative that the parties should await outcome of said suit and stand governed by the same. 14. In the interregnum, a Hon'ble Predecessor Judge has granted an interim order dated 12.06.2019 in IV-WP which reads as follows: 'Heard Mr.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. 14. In the interregnum, a Hon'ble Predecessor Judge has granted an interim order dated 12.06.2019 in IV-WP which reads as follows: 'Heard Mr.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner had already been selected/elected as the Secretary of the Educational Agency and in this regard, Form VII had been submitted to the 2nd respondent. However, one of the members viz., one T.S.Kalyana Sundar already approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.5106 of 2019 with the prayer of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent therein from approving the Form-VII submitted by the 4th respondent therein dated 18.02.2019 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to conduct the election to the office bearers for the period of 2019–2022 of the 2nd respondent Society by an independent officer. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the said member viz., T.S.Kalyana Sundar. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by orders of this Court dated 06.03.2019. 3. Thereafter, it seems that the said T.S.Kalyana Sundar with other two members viz., I.K.Subramanian and I.A.Chidambaram filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi, where, almost, the same prayer had been sought for and the said suit is pending, where, the learned Senior Counsel submits that, no interim order has been granted. 4. After having made these two attempts, one before this Court and another before the concerned Civil Court, the said members seems to have approached the 1st respondent i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, on whose instructions, the District Registrar i.e. the 2nd respondent has not acted upon the Form VII submitted in February 2019 by the petitioner, with the result, Form VII has been kept pending at the Office of the 2nd respondent. The consequential effect is that, the 3rd respondent i.e., the District Educational Officer has not approving the Secretary ship of the petitioner, with the result, the requirement/request from the Educational Agency on behalf of the School routed through the petitioner, being the Secretary of the Agency, cannot be considered by the 3 rd respondent and that will cripple the very administration and Management of the School under the petitioner's Secretary ship. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court by way of interim direction as prayed for in this W.M.P.(MD) No.9854 of 2019. 5. I have heard the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent, who would submit that if at all, any such direction as sought for by the petitioner is granted that shall be restricted only as temporary measure subject to the out come of the writ petition as well as the final order to be passed in the pending suit filed by the other three members. 6. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, unless Form VII is accepted by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent cannot accept the Secretary ship of the petitioner. However, in this case, since the suit has already been filed by some third parties and the same is pending before the concerned Civil Court, the third respondent seems to have not acted upon the Form VII submitted by the petitioner, with a result, the 3rd respondent Educational Authority has not come forward to accept the Secretary ship of the petitioner. 7. In order to overcome these difficulties and to run the institution smoothly for the betterment of the institution and the students and the staff of the school concerned under the petitioner Management, this Court is inclined to pass the following interim order: (i) The 3rd respondent is hereby directed to approve the Secretary ship of the petitioner for the Educational Agency viz., Ilanji Kalvi Sangam and the school running under the said Sangam as a temporary measure, till any order is passed by this Court in this writ petition or any order is passed by the Civil Court, where the Civil Suit i.e. O.S.No.117 of 2019 is pending on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi. (ii) It is made clear that this direction is issued only by taking into account the prima facie that Form VII has been submitted by the petitioner alone and no other rival claim has been made, except the Civil Suit, which is pending before the concerned Civil Court. (iii) It is further made clear that the approval to be given recognizing the present petitioner as Secretary by the 3rd respondent would not in any way advance the case of the petitioner seeking the permanent Secretary ship, if any order is passed in the pending Civil Suit and no equity also can be claimed by the petitioner at the final disposal of this writ petition, merely because this direction is now issued as an interim measure. With this condition, the aforesaid direction is given as an interim measure and the respondents, especially, the 3rd respondent shall act upon as per this direction. 8. The respondents shall file counter at the earliest.' 15. This Court deems it appropriate to direct the jurisdictional Civil Court, namely Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi to expedite the aforementioned suit, i.e., O.S.No.117 of 2019 and dispose of the same within nine (9) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the interregnum, the interim order passed by Predecessor Hon'ble Judge in IV- WP will operate and the operation of this interim order in the IV-WP and disposal of the suit shall be co-terminus with the disposal of the suit. In other words, on disposal of the suit, this interim order will cease to operate. For further clarity and specificity, it is made clear that the interim order now operating in the IV-WP shall be the arrangement which shall keep the said society and said school running without affecting students/children studying therein till the suit is disposed of. To be noted, this part of the order is by consent as both learned counsel for private parties agreed to suit being expedited and this interim arrangement operating till disposal of suit. 16. This takes us to I-WP. In the I-WP, as already alluded to supra, impugned order in I-WP has been assailed on three grounds. The first two grounds pertain to unholy haste and reasonable opportunity/personal hearing touching upon 'Natural Justice Principles' ('NJP' for brevity). 16. This takes us to I-WP. In the I-WP, as already alluded to supra, impugned order in I-WP has been assailed on three grounds. The first two grounds pertain to unholy haste and reasonable opportunity/personal hearing touching upon 'Natural Justice Principles' ('NJP' for brevity). For NJP, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service Papanasam Labour Welfare Association case being The Management of Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli reported in 1998 (III) CTC 753 . Papanasam Labour Welfare Association case is one where an order came to be passed without issue of notice at all and therefore, in the considered view of this Court Papanasam Labour Welfare Association principle does not help the writ petitioner in I-WP. 17. However, in a case of this nature, when the rule under which the impugned order has been passed is silent or for that matter, when impugned order passed is silent about the procedure adopted, it would be appropriate to read into the procedure NJP. This view has been taken in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and will therefore not serve as a precedent. In this regard, this Court notices that impugned order in I-WP has been passed under Paragraph 2 of Annexure III of TN Private Schools Rules which reads as follows: “ANNEXURE III [Vide Rule (19)] Procedure for payment of pay and allowances to teachers and other persons in private schools (1) ....... (2) High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools. The Secretary of High School and Higher Secondary Schools shall submit every month to the District Educational Officer an application for monthly staff grant in the form. It shall be accompanied by a detailed statement of the staff employed from first to the last day of the month. The statement shall be signed by both the Headmaster and the Secretary of the School. The statement shall reach the District Educational Officer before the 22nd of every month. Based on this statement the District Educational Officer shall sanction staff grant in the specified bill form, before the 25th of the month, at the latest so as to enable the Secretary to encash the bill on the first of the succeeding month or any date authorised by the Director of School Education and disburse the salaries of the employees on the same day.” 18. If NJP are read into the said rule, the scenario would be like this. SCN was issued on 16.02.2018 which is Friday and the noticee writ petitioner was called upon to respond before 19.02.2018. Impugned order in I-WP came to be passed on 20.02.2018. A perusal of the SCN reveals that it is predicated on four grounds, namely (i) steps taken against a teacher, who is the alleged epicenter of aforementioned FIR, (ii) the Headmaster being an aided institution teacher, having suffered arrest and consequences thereof (iii) there is a change in the Agency (according to SCN though this is subjected to disputation) and (iv) the school committee meeting not being convened. Having predicated the SCN on four such different grounds, the time given was certainly too short to respond. Considering the nature of response and considering the consequence which the impugned order has brought to bear, this Court is of the considered view that it would have been appropriate to give more time to call for further particulars and then, take a decision. This view also answers the unholy haste point urged in favour of writ petitioner. 19. This takes us to absence of special circumstances argument. To be noted, what are special circumstances within the meaning of Paragraph II of Annexure III of TN Private Schools Rules was lucidly explained by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, namely Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian (as His Lordship then was) in Sir M.Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Boys Higher Secondary School Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu case being an order dated 13.11.2014 in W.P.No.23177 of 2013. Relevant paragraph is paragraph 25 and the same reads as follows: '25. What are special circumstances, are not indicated in the Act. Therefore, one may have to take it that the authority competent to sanction the grant, namely the District Educational Officer should arrive at a subjective satisfaction about the existence of special circumstances, but following an objective criteria.' 20. The aforesaid instructive paragraph pertains to special circumstances within the meaning of Paragraph II of Annexure III of TN Private Schools Rules and for the purpose of clarity in this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph 23 also of Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Boys Higher Secondary School case and the same reads as follows: '23. The aforesaid instructive paragraph pertains to special circumstances within the meaning of Paragraph II of Annexure III of TN Private Schools Rules and for the purpose of clarity in this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph 23 also of Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Boys Higher Secondary School case and the same reads as follows: '23. Annexure I to the Rules divides the grants that could be made, into two categories, namely (a) staff grant and (b) maintenance grant. Annexure III contains the procedure for payment of pay and allowances to teachers and others. Under paragraph (1)(a) of Annexure III, the District Educational Officer is obliged to release the teaching grant bills to the Secretary of the School, marking a copy of the sanction order to the treasury. The Secretary, in turn, should disburse the pay and allowances to the teachers and others. Under paragraph II of Annexure III, the District Educational Officer is empowered under special circumstances to make direct payment to the Headmaster of a School or to the teachers of a School.' 21. On a careful perusal of the impugned order in I-WP in the light of 'special circumstances' as explained in Sir M.Ct.Muthiah Chettiar Boys Higher Secondary School case, it comes to light that no case for special circumstances have been made out as the impugned order in I-WP is more in the nature of a narrative of the SCN and the reply. In other words, in the considered view of this court, a perusal of the impugned order in I-WP leaves this court with the view that this court is unable to convince itself that a case of special circumstances within the meaning of provisions we are concerned with has been made out. 22. To be noted, a compilation of judgments was pressed into service by learned counsel for writ petitioner in I-WP and learned counsel for writ petitioner in II-WP pressed into service A.Jeba Singh Prasad and others Vs. The General Manager, Southern Railway and others case being order dated 14.8.2007 made by an another Hon'ble Single Judge of this court. Though the compilation consists of seven judgments, only those judgments pressed into service by learned counsel have been dealt with. The General Manager, Southern Railway and others case being order dated 14.8.2007 made by an another Hon'ble Single Judge of this court. Though the compilation consists of seven judgments, only those judgments pressed into service by learned counsel have been dealt with. With regard to Jeba Singh Prasad case pressed into service by learned counsel for writ petitioner in II-WP, as this court has taken a view that expedited outcome in the aforementioned civil suit has to be awaited and as interim arrangement has been put in place by consent, the same is not being adverted to. While on this, this court deems it appropriate to make it clear that the view taken/verdict returned by this Court in II-WP, III-WP and IV WP shall not be construed as sustaining the impugned order in IV-WP. 23. The counter affidavit of State counsel filed on behalf of Registration Department does not require to be gone into and in any event, it stands addressed by the view taken by this Court. 24. This takes this order back to the discussion qua I-WP. The stand of State counsel for School Education Department has already been extracted and set out supra. The law is well settled that a impugned order cannot be improved by way of counter affidavit in a writ petition. In this view of the matter, the counter affidavit does not help relieving the impugned order of flaws that have been alluded to supra. In this regard, this court reminds itself of the celebrated Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill case being Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 and relevant paragraph in Mohinder Singh Gill case is paragraph No.8, which reads as follows: '8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 ]: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older. A CAVEAT' 25. This leaves this Court with the conclusion that the impugned order in I-WP deserves to be set aside. 26. In sum totality, this court passes the following common order: (a) With regard to I-WP, i.e., W.P.(MD)No.3817 of 2018, impugned order being order dated 20.02.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.641/Aa3/2018 made by fourth respondent is set aside; (b) With regard to II-WP, III-WP and IV-WP, parties shall await the outcome of civil suit being O.S.No. 117 of 2019 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi. (c) The jurisdictional Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi shall expedite the disposal of the suit being O.S.No.117 of 2019 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of nine(9) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (d) Till the disposal of the civil suit, parties have consented that they stand governed by the arrangement adumbrated in order dated 12.06.2019 made in W.M.P. (MD)No.9854 of 2019 in W.P.(MD)No.13221 of 2019. 27. W.P.(MD)No.3817 of 2018 is allowed. The other writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(MD) Nos.8226, 9708 and 13221 of 2019 are disposed of on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.