J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) This appeal, is by the Government, challenges to the order of the learned Single Judge directing payment of Salary to the 12 non-teaching staff appointed by the Management as against the sanctioned posts. 2. According to the College, which is a recognized aided institution, there was a sanction for 34 non-teaching staff granted on 03.06.1977. The break-up of the non-teaching staff as found from the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education in RC No.72291/S2/77 dated 03.06.1977, is as follows: PROFORMA Non Teaching Name of the College:- G.V.G. College, Udumalpet. CATEGORY No. of Posts Manager -- Head Clerk One Assistant -- Jr. Assistant Two Typist One Office Assistant Two Lab Attender Twelve Library Attenders One Peons Four Mechanics -- Store-Keeper One Herbarium Keeper One Watchman Two Waterman One Sweeper Four Scavenger One Gardner One 3. Subsequently by proceedings dated 19.12.1997 one post of Marker was also sanctioned. The College appointed 12 persons in various non-teaching sanctioned vacancies which are as follows: S.No. Posts Number of Vacancies 1. Waterman 01 2. Watchman 02 3. Sweeper 04 4. Scavenger 01 5. Gardener 01 6. Marker 01 7. Office Assistant 02 Total 12 4. These appointments were approved by the proceedings of the Directorate of Collegiate Education in Na.Ka.No.15465/G3/2022 dated 04.04.2022 and Na.Ka.No.22118/G3/2022 dated 14.05.2022. Since salaries were not paid to these non-teaching staff, the College was forced to file a Writ Petition in WP No.9164 of 2024 seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse Salary to the Group-D non-teaching staff in the College. 5. The Writ Petition was resisted by the Government contending that these posts were not sanctioned posts and under G.O.Ms.No.219 dated 24.10.2003, which in turn follows G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 14.05.2002, of the Personal and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, the Aided Colleges have been instructed to outsource works relating to sweeping, scavenging, cleaning, Watch & ward etc. 6. G.O.Ms. 5. The Writ Petition was resisted by the Government contending that these posts were not sanctioned posts and under G.O.Ms.No.219 dated 24.10.2003, which in turn follows G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 14.05.2002, of the Personal and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, the Aided Colleges have been instructed to outsource works relating to sweeping, scavenging, cleaning, Watch & ward etc. 6. G.O.Ms. No.49 and G.O.Ms.219 were subject matter of challenge in various proceedings before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Ramasamy Tamil College , dated 27.01.2025 made in Writ Appeal No.2348 of 2024 had after referring to the judgment of this Court in Secretary, Nirmala College for Woman (Autonomous) vs. State of Tamil Nad u, quashing G.O.Ms.No.219 and the fact that the said judgment in S ecretary Nirmala College for Woman (Autonomous), having been up held by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.2096 and 2124 of 2019 vide its order dated 19.07.2019 had held that G.O.Ms.No.49 as well as G.O.Ms.No.219 shall not be made applicable to Private Aided Education Institutions both Colleges and Schools run in the State of Tamil Nadu which are governed by the two legislations namely the Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1976 and Tamilnadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act,1973. In paragraph 30 of the said order this Court observed as follows: “30. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of this writ appeal with the following modification of the order that has been passed by the writ Court which is impugned herein: (i) G.O.(Ms)No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 14.05.2002 shall not be made applicable to the Private Aided Educational Institutions both Colleges and Schools run in the State of Tamil Nadu which are mainly governed by two legislations stated herein above. (ii) Insofar as the consequential proceedings that has been issued, by which the proposal given by the respondent / College Management to give approval of the appointment that has been made in the sanctioned vacancies in Group~D posts are concerned, the only reason since has been cited by the appellant Department by citing G.O.(Ms)No.49 since would not hold good, the order negating such proposals sent by the College Management also would not be sustained in the legal scrutiny, therefore, the quashment or setting aside of those orders passed by the Educational Department through the impugned order of the learned Judge is to be upheld. Resultantly, the order impugned in this writ appeal insofar as the quashment of G.O.(Ms)No.49, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 14.05.2002 is concerned, is set aside, instead the afore stated declaration alone is made. (iii) As a sequel, the consequential orders of rejection of approval of Group~D posts of the respondent / College Management are also set aside. (iv) Resultantly, there shall be a direction to the appellant Department to reconsider the proposal that has been sent by the College Management for approval of such appointment and such approval shall be given by the second appellant within a period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. Subsequently, we had an occasion to consider the same question in WA No.714 of 2025 in Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Meston College of Education, by our order dated 14.03.2025, we had dismissed the Appeal by the Government on the ground that it is covered by previous decisions of this Court. Taking note of the above said judgments, the Writ Court granted the prayers sought for viz. a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary for the 12 non-teaching staff, who were appointed by the respondent College. Aggrieved, the Government is on Appeal. 8. We have heard Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellants and Ms.Selvi George, learned counsel appearing for M/s.E.Martin Jaya Kumar, for the first respondent. 9. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the appellant relying upon the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Coimbatore (Division) dated 07.04.1987 would submit that these posts were not sanctioned posts and the posts that were sanctioned to the respondent College as per the proceedings of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education dated 07.04.1987 are only: S.No. Posts Number of Vacancies 1. Superintendent 1 2. Assistant 2 3. Junior Assistant 3 4. Typist 2 5. Record Clerk 3 Total 11 Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, these posts viz. the Posts of Waterman, Watchman, Sweeper, Scavenger, Gardener, Marker and Office Assistant are not sanctioned posts. He would also point out that the proceedings of the Directorate of Collegiate Education dated 04.04.2022 contains a condition to the effect that the appointments should not exceed the sanctioned strength in the year 1987, a similar condition is also found in the order dated 14.05.2022. He would also point out that the proceedings of the Directorate of Collegiate Education dated 04.04.2022 contains a condition to the effect that the appointments should not exceed the sanctioned strength in the year 1987, a similar condition is also found in the order dated 14.05.2022. Surprised by the imposition of such a condition by the Authority, who has the power to sanction posts we had required the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the original files relating to the sanction of both teaching and non-teaching staff to the respondent College. 10. We had also required Mr.C.Poorna Chandran, M.C.A., M.Phil, Ph.D. , to be present before us to explain as to why he had granted approval with a condition which reads as follows: 11. Though Mr.C. Poorna Chandran is present in Court, he refuses to answer any of our questions, we are sure that he has been told not to open his mouth and stand like a pillar, so that we do not elicit any information from him. This is rather unfortunate. Since the Department claims that it is not in possession of the original records, we are forced go by the records that are produced by the College. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent College has produced two proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education one dated 03.06.1977 and the other dated 19.12.1997. As per the proceedings dated 03.06.1977, the College has been sanctioned the following non-teaching staff. PROFORMA Non Teaching Name of the College:- G.V.G. College, Udumalpet. CATEGORY No. of Posts Manager -- Head Clerk One Assistant -- Jr. Assistant Two Typist One Office Assistant Two Lab Attender Twelve Library Attenders One Peons Four Mechanics -- Store-Keeper One Herbarium Keeper One Watchman Two Waterman One Sweeper Four Scavenger One Gardner One and as per the proceedings dated 19.12.1997, the College has been sanctioned one post of marker. It is seen from those proceedings that the College had a total number of 35 non-teaching sanctioned posts. The reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on the proceedings dated 07.04.1987, in our opinion, is misconceived. The proceedings dated 07.04.1987 relate to persons in the Clerical Cadre and the perusal of the proceedings would show that they are additional posts sanctioned. This inference of us is based on the annexure which states as to how the posts have been sanctioned. The proceedings dated 07.04.1987 relate to persons in the Clerical Cadre and the perusal of the proceedings would show that they are additional posts sanctioned. This inference of us is based on the annexure which states as to how the posts have been sanctioned. The annexure lists out the posts which have been sanctioned as per a G.O. dated 25.07.1985. 12. The next column in the annexure states that the total number of sanctioned posts in the College including the posts that were sanctioned afresh in 1985 -1986. It also contains additional posts sanctioned in 1986- 1987. Therefore, the proceedings dated 07.04.1987 cannot be construed as the proceedings sanctioning non-teaching staff for the respondent College for the first time. The respondent College was established in the year 1952. It was in existence when the Private College Regulation Act was enacted. 13. Therefore, we have to go by the proceedings of the year 1977 and 1997 wherein 35 posts of non-teaching staff have been sanctioned to the College. Though, we have considerable doubt as to the truth of the claim of the learned Special Government Pleader that the original records are not available, we have to necessarily express our helplessness in making the officials of the Directorate of Collegiate Education to cooperate with us in bringing out the truth. We are sure that there is a calculated attempt to burke truth before this Court by the officials of the Directorate of Collegiate Education. Once it is found that the posts were sanctioned in 1977 itself and the appointments were approved in 2022 by the Director of Collegiate Education, the Government cannot escape the liability to pay salaries. 14. We therefore dismiss the Appeal with cost of Rs.50,00,000/- to be paid by the Government. Out of the cost of Rs.50,00,000/- a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-each shall be paid to the 12 employees who were not paid salaries. Of the remaining sum of Rs.32,00,000/-, Rs.16,00,000/- shall be paid to M/s. Cancare Foundation, 3A, Ramaniyam Saras, 39/17, 4 th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai-600 020 , the balance amount of Rs.16,00,000/- shall be paid to Nethrodaya . Of the costs directed to be paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- shall be recovered from Mr.C.Poorna Chandran, the then Director of Collegiate Education who is the author of the orders of approval issued in the year 2022. Of the costs directed to be paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- shall be recovered from Mr.C.Poorna Chandran, the then Director of Collegiate Education who is the author of the orders of approval issued in the year 2022. The remaining sum of Rs.25,00,000/- shall be recovered from all the staff members of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, who are found responsible for screening away the records from this Court with a sole object of burkeing truth from this Court. 15. The Secretary, Higher Education Department will immediately initiate Departmental Action against all the persons who are responsible for the records going missing in the office of the Directorate of Collegiate Education and recover the costs from the persons who are found responsible for the records going missing. The Appeal is dismissed. 16. We record our sincere appreciation to the efforts of the leaned Special Government Pleader in making the officials of the Directorate of Collegiate Education understand his difficulties and also our difficulties. The costs is imposed only because of the non-cooperative and adamant attitude exhibited by the officials of the Department of Collegiate Education. The appellants will comply with the order of the learned Single Judge and also pay the costs as directed supra within a period of eight weeks from today. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.