The Corporate Manage... v. The State Of Tamil N..., Madras High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P (MD) No. 7717 of 2006 and M.P Nos. 1 & 2

Advocates

Mr. Isaac Mohanlal.
Mrs. Jessi Jeeva Priya Special Govt. Pleader.

Judges

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

Acts

Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 and the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977.
SECTION 19 TAMIL NADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS REGULATION ACT 1973
Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974,
Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977,
TAMIL NADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS REGULATION ACT 1973
Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules,
Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.4.
rule 15: (a) in sub-rule (2), after clause (1),
Rule 15 of the Rules, 1974

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition seeks quashment of the second respondent/Director of School Education's proceeding Na.Ka No. 30687.D1(2)/04 dated 26.10.2004 insofar as it applies to the petitioner-management's schools. The petitioner is the Corporate Manager of schools established and administered by the Church of South India, Kanyakumari Diocese, a Christian minority educational agency. The petition concerns appointments to teacher posts in aided schools and the qualifications and categorisation of those posts following Government Orders (G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated 14.6.2002 and G.O. Ms. No. 125 dated 12.11.2003) and amendments to Rule 15 and Annexures of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.

Following the Government's decision to upgrade certain secondary grade posts to middle grade graduate teacher posts for standards 6–8, and the later G.O. and rule amendments introducing "Junior Grade" posts and qualifications in Annexure V-A, the petitioner appointed four Middle Grade Graduate Teachers (Science) in Scott Christian Higher Secondary School (vacancies arising on 1.6.2005). The 4th respondent returned the appointment proposals citing the second respondent's 26.10.2004 proceeding which prescribed a subject-wise roster (Maths, Science and English) to be followed. The petitioner challenged the second respondent's proceeding as unlawful and contrary to the Act, Rules and Government Orders, and sought approval of the appointments.

The matter was heard in writ proceedings. The court considered submissions of the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents and the relevant statutory provisions, rules, government orders and earlier judicial decisions before delivering its order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner-management can be compelled to follow the subject-wise roster as directed by the second respondent through the impugned circular/proceeding dated 26.10.2004.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The impugned proceeding of the second respondent is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules and inconsistent with G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated 14.6.2002 and G.O. Ms. No. 125 dated 12.11.2003.
The Act and Rules have not been amended to create a subject-wise roster; statutory rules do not prescribe subject-wise roster and therefore managements are entitled to appoint teachers according to the school's needs when vacancies arise.
The impugned order infringes the minority management's right to administer educational institutions of its choice under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
Earlier orders of this Court in W.P. No. 3823 of 2006 (dated 13.9.2006) found a similar impugned circular illegal as violating Annexure V-A of the Rules; that principle applies here.
The second respondent previously granted conversions of subject posts on management requests (examples given from 1989 and 1999), showing that the Director used to verify workload and permit conversions; the impugned circular departs from that practice and directs subject roster without ascertaining real need.

Respondents’ Arguments

The impugned circular is valid and issued to ensure subject roster is followed so that schools will have teachers for all subjects and the educational needs of the schools will be better served.
The circular is a clarification issued by the second respondent and does not amend the Rules or Government Orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
(1979) 2 SCC 150 — District Registrar, Palghat and others v. M.B. Koyakutty and others	The executive may supplement statutory rules by administrative instructions where statutory provisions are silent, but such instructions must be subservient to and not inconsistent with statutory provisions.	The court relied on this principle to explain that if there were a genuine gap in statutory provisions the Government might fill it, but the second respondent (Director) could not validly issue a circular purporting to create or impose a subject roster because the circular was not an executive action of the Government filling a statutory gap.
(1979) 4 SCC 507 — B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka	Regularisation or executive action that overrides statutory rules framed under Article 309 is not permissible; executive power cannot contravene statutory rules.	The court cited this case to reinforce that executive orders cannot override statutory rules and used it to reject any contention that the impugned circular could operate so as to contravene the statutory framework governing teacher appointments.
V. Sreenivasa Reddy and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others — 1995 Supp (1) SCC 572 (followed)	Affirms the principle in B.N. Nagarajan that regularisation in violation of statutory rules is impermissible.	The court referenced that this decision follows the restrictive view on executive action conflicting with statutory rules, supporting the court's analysis that the circular cannot override the rules.
(2006) 1 SCC 567 — State of Karnataka and others v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Association and others	Reiterates the principle that executive action cannot contravene statutory rules (as cited in para 44 of that judgment).	The court noted that the same view has been taken in this decision, using it to bolster the conclusion that administrative action inconsistent with statutory provisions is invalid.
W.P. No. 3823 of 2006 (Tamil Nadu High Court) — order dated 13.9.2006	High Court had held a similar circular issued by the second respondent illegal as violating Annexure V-A of the Rules.	The court applied the principle and reasoning of that earlier High Court order, stating that the principle set out therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case and supports quashing the impugned circular.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded by reference to the statutory framework (the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder, and the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977), the Government Orders (G.O. Ms. No. 79 dated 14.6.2002 and G.O. Ms. No. 125 dated 12.11.2003), and the amendments to Rule 15 and the Annexures prescribing qualifications.

Key analytical steps as set out in the opinion:

Statutory and rule position: The Act and Rules (including Rule 15 and Annexure V / Annexure V-A and Annexure-III of the Minority Rules) prescribe qualifications for posts (e.g., for Middle Grade Graduate Teacher, B.A./B.Sc. and B.Ed). The court observed that neither the Act nor the Rules nor G.O. Ms. No. 125 prescribe that vacancies in middle schools (standards 6 to 8) must be filled by following a subject-wise roster.
Scope of executive action: The court noted Section 19 and 20 of the Act allow the Government to make rules prescribing qualifications and conditions, but where the statutory framework is silent the Government (not the Director) may fill a gap by issuing administrative instructions subordinate to statutory provisions. The court relied on the District Registrar decision to explain limits on executive supplementation and on B.N. Nagarajan (and follow-up cases) to stress that executive orders cannot override statutory rules.
Jurisdictional limit of the second respondent: The court differentiated between action by the Government (first respondent) and action by the Director (second respondent), holding that the second respondent was not empowered to impose a subject-wise roster by circular. The respondents' contention that the circular was a mere clarification and valid was rejected because the circular imposed a substantive requirement not grounded in the statute, Rules or G.O. Ms. No. 125.
Application of past practice and material consideration: The court recounted prior instances where the second respondent permitted conversion of subject posts upon management request and verification (examples from 1989 and 1999). The court found the impugned circular unreasonable because it directed adherence to a subject roster without ascertaining the actual need or availability of qualified teachers in particular schools, and thus was issued without proper application of mind.
Reliance on precedent and previous High Court ruling: The court applied the principle from W.P. No. 3823 of 2006 where a similar circular was held illegal for violating Annexure-V and held that the same principle applies here. The court also invoked Supreme Court authorities to support the legal proposition that administrative action inconsistent with statutory rules is impermissible.

On that basis the court concluded that the second respondent's circular directing subject-wise roster was issued without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory framework and applicable precedents.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The impugned circular/proceeding issued by the second respondent dated 26.10.2004 is treated as non-est and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

Direct consequences and directions:

The court directed the 4th respondent to approve the appointments of the teachers appointed in the petitioner-management's schools without reference to the impugned circular.
No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Implications beyond the parties: The opinion applies existing statutory interpretation and precedent to disallow a subordinate official (the Director) from imposing a subject-wise roster absent statutory authority. The decision operates to vindicate the petitioner's appointments and to restrain the second respondent from enforcing the impugned circular, but the court's order does not purport to create a new broad precedent beyond applying established principles and a prior High Court order to the facts of this case.

Show full summary ...

The Corporate Manager, Csi Corporate Schools, Csi Diocese Of Kanyakumari, No. 71 A, Dennis Street, Nagercoil - 629 001. Petitioner v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the proceeding of the second respondent/Director of School Education in Na.Ka No. 30687.D1(2)/04 dated 26.10.2004 insofar as the Schools under the petitioner-management are concerned.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows.

(a) Petitioner is a Corporate Manager of the Schools established and administered by the Church of South India, Kanyakumari Diocese, which is a Christian Minority Educational Agency. The Educational Agency has established and is administering several institutions including number of schools. The teachers in the said schools are being appointed based on the sanction of post, following the qualifications prescribed by the Government from time to time.

(b) According to the petitioner, there are four categories of teachers in the aided schools apart from Special teachers, Language Teachers, Physical Education Teachers and Vocational Instructors, viz.,

(i) Secondary Grade Teachers with qualification of pass in SSLC and Diploma in Teacher Training for standards 1 to 5 in Primary Schools;

(ii) Middle Grade Graduate Teachers with B.A/B.Sc And B.Ed qualification for standards 6 to 8 in Middle Schools/Middle Sections;

(iii) B.T Assistants with B.A/B.Sc, and B.Ed qualification for standards 9 and 10 in High Schools/High School Sections; and

(iv) P.G Assistants with M.A/M.Sc/M.Com and B.Ed qualification for standards 11 and 12 in Higher Secondary Schools.

It is stated in the affidavit tha t prior to issuance of G.O.Ms No. 79 Education, dated 14.6.2002, all the teachers in standards 1 to 8 were in the cadre of Secondary Grade, that is, with SSLC with Diploma in Teacher Training qualification. By virtue of G.O Ms. No. 79 Education, dated 14.6.2002, the Government found that the Secondary Grade Trained Teachers are not found competent to handle the middle School syllabus of standards 6, 7 and 8 in the subjects English, Maths and Science and therefore the standard of education is being affected in the primary level.

(c) Taking note of the said fact, the Government thought fit to upgrade the secondary grade post available in the aided schools of standards 6 to 8 as Middle Grade Teacher post from 1.6.2002 and that they will be paid one advance increment. It is also stated in the said Government Order that the statutory rules will be amended for the creation of Middle Grade Graduate Teacher post for standards 6 to 8 in middle schools, high schools and higher secondary schools.

(d) Insofar as the aided schools are concerned, the Government subsequently issued G.O Ms. No. 125 School Education Department, dated 12.11.2003 by stating that the Secondary Grade Teacher posts will be downgraded as Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teachers; B.T Grade teachers post will be called as Junior Grade B.T Teachers and the P.G Grade Teachers will be called Junior grade P.G Assistants with consolidated pay of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 4,500/- respectively. Amendment to Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, was also made, which reads as follows,

“1. In rule 15: —

(a) in sub-rule (2), after clause (1), the following clause shall be inserted namely: —

“A-1) The Schools committee of every Private Schools shall enter into a agreement with the person appointed as Junior Grade teacher in Form vii-c”

(b) after sub-rule (6) the following sub-rule shall be inserted namely

“(-A) The person appointed as Junior Grade Teacher in a private School shall possess the qualifications specified in Annexure V-A”

2. after Annexure V, the following Annexure shall be inserted namely: —

…………….”

(e) In Annexure V-A, the qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Grade B.Ed Teachers in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools are B.A Or B.Sc, of any University in the state or its equivalent and B.T Or B.Ed; for Junior Grade B.Ed, Teacher in the Middle Schools, B.A, or B.Sc, of any University in the State or its equivalent and B.T Or B.Ed,; for Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teacher, SSLC and DTE certificate of Tamil Nadu or its equivalent and for the post of Junior Grade PG Assistant, Masters degree in the relevant subjects and B.T Or B.Ed degree or its equivalent.

(f) Petitioner therefore submits that Teachers are to be appointed with the above qualifications for the respective posts as and when vacancy arises and by virtue of G.O Ms. No. 79 dated 14.6.2002, retirement/death/resignation vacancies arising from 1.6.2002 in standards 6 to 8 shall be filled up by appointing Middle Grade Graduate Teacher that is with B.A/B.Sc And B.Ed qualification for the subjects of English, Maths and Science and the petitioner Management is appointing middle grade graduate teachers in standards 6 to 8 in the vacancies arising from June, 2003, according to the subjects in which the school is in need of.

(g) The grievance of the petitioner is that in Scott Christian Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil, which is one of the schools established and administered by the Corporate Management, four secondary grade teacher posts fell vacant on 1.6.2005 on account of retirement/promotion of teachers previously working therein and taking note of the availability of teachers in the subjects, petitioner appointed four Middle Grade Graduate Teachers (Science). The said appointments are made due to the need for science teachers in the middle school sections of the school and when the proposals were submitted for approval before the 4th respondent, the same was returned by stating that as per the second respondent's proceeding dated 26.10.2004, the subject roster should have been followed by the management viz., Maths, Science and English and the petitioner management having not followed the subject roster, the proposal for approval are returned for which the petitioner management submitted a reply on 19.7.2006 before the 4th respondent and stated that taking note of the need of the School, the four middle grade graduate teachers (Science) were appointed to handle 12 sections of middle school as there are one graduate Maths teacher two graduate Social Science teachers and five secondary grade teachers handling English and Maths. However, the 4th respondent is not entertaining the request submitted by the petitioner Management and not approving the appointment of the said four middle grade graduate teachers (Science) appointed in Scott Christian Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil from 2.6.2005, 5.7.2005 and 6.7.2005 respectively. Since the appointments are not approved the petitioner is challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 26.10.2004 in which subject rotation is fixed by the second respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceeding of the second respondent is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules and also in violation of G.O Ms. NO. 79 dated 14.6.2005 and G.O Ms. No. 125 dated 12.11.2003 The learned counsel further submits that the Act or Rules are not amended and as per the statutory rule, there is no subject-wise roster to be followed by the aided schools and the schools are entitled to appoint teachers according to the need, whenever the posts became vacant. Learned Counsel also argued that by virtue of the said impugned order, the right to administer the educational institutions by the minority management of its choice is infringed as it is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution India. The learned counsel also cited a judgment of this Court made in W.P No. 3823 of 2006 dated 13.9.2006 and pointed out that the impugned circular has already been found illegal as it is in violation of Annexure V-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned circular of the Director is valid as the same are issued to follow the subject roster and if the same is followed the Schools will have teachers for all subjects and the educational need of the school will be better served. The learned counsel also argued that it is only a clarification issued by the second respondent and no amendment is issued to the Rules or Government Orders referred to earlier.

5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader.

6. The point in issue is whether the petitioner management can be compelled to follow the subject-wise roster as directed by the second respondent through the impugned circular.

7. It is not in dispute that the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder or the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977 are not amended till date. It is also not in dispute that G.O Ms. No. 125 dated 12.11.2003 issued by the first respondent, which is governing the appointment of Middle Grade Graduate Teachers nowhere stipulates that the management should follow the subject-wise roster while filling up the vacant posts of the Middle Grade Graduate Teachers in standards 6 to 8.

8. Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 clearly states that the Government may make rules regulating the number, qualifications and conditions of service of the teachers and other persons employed in any private school and as per Section 20 of the Act, no person, who does not possess the qualifications prescribed under section 19 shall, on or after the date of the commencement of this Act, be appointed as teacher or other employee in any private school. It is also stated in Rule 15 of the Rules, 1974 that the number of teachers and other persons employed in the Private schools shall not exceed the number of posts sanctioned by the Director of School Education from time to time with reference to the academic requirements, teacher-pupil ratio and over all financial situation. Under Rule 15(3) it is stated that in a regular vacancy a fully qualified candidate shall be appointed only in a regular vacancy, however in a temporary vacancy, a teacher or other person may be appointed for a specified period.

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the qualifications prescribed for each of the teaching post is stated in Annexure-V of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 and the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977. It is stated therein that for a post of Middle Grade Graduate teacher, B.A/B.Sc, and B.Ed degree is prescribed. G.O.Ms No. 125 Education, dated 12.11.2003 also prescribes the qualification for Junior Grade Teacher in the Middle schools as B.A or B.Sc, of any University in the state or its equivalent and B.T or B.Ed Nowhere in the said Government Order or in the rules framed under the Act it is stated that the vacancies in the middle schools of standards 6 to 8 are to be filled up by subject roster.

10. The Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977, which is applicable to the minority schools in the state of Tamil Nadu, namely Rule 8 also states that the qualification for appointment of teachers in Minority Schools shall be as specified in Annexure-III appended to the rules. Annexure-III prescribes similar qualification to various categories of teachers as stated in Annexure-V of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.

11. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, hitherto the concerned managements sent proposal for the conversion of posts and the second respondent used to grant permission to convert the post from one subject to the other needy subject. Learned counsel also submitted that by proceeding Mu.Mu No. 137700.W6/88 dated 8.2.1989, the second respondent at the request of the Management, granted permission to the St. Francis Higher Secondary School, Vavarai, Kanyakumari District, to convert the post of the PG Assistant (Geography) into PG Assistant (Commerce). Similarly, by proceeding Thi.Mu No. 89903.W6/98 dated 16.3.1999, at the request made by the management of the St. Mary Higher Secondary School, Colachal, the second respondent granted permission to convert the post of PG Assistant (Zoology) into PG Assistant (Commerce). From the above proceedings it is clear that the need of the particular subject teacher in a School will be ascertained by the concerned management and if any conversion of post is required, the concerned management will submit a proposal based on the workload and the second respondent after verifying the same, used to grant permission. But, by the impugned circular, the second respondent has directed the management to fill up the vacant posts by subject roster without ascertaining the real need of the school with regard to the subject teacher. Hence the impugned circular is unreasonable and based on no material. It may be true, for a new school, when posts are sanctioned, the second respondent is justified in giving a subject roster to fill up the posts, but cannot insist the Schools, where teachers are already working in different subjects.

12. The Director of School Education on his own has issued circular to fill up the post of Maths, English and Science in the vacancies arising from 1.6.2003 It is also stated in the said circular that for the subject of Scientific Tamil only Science teacher is competent to handle the classes, which is a new subject introduced. It is not in dispute that all the post in a school having standards 6 to 8 are earmarked as Maths, English and Science respectively. It is stated in the impugned circular that the retirement/death/resignation vacancies arising from 1.6.2003 shall be filled up by following the subject roster. The said circular do not consider the availability of qualified B.A and B.Ed passed Secondary grade Teacher working in the school for handling English, Maths and Science Subjects. If really there are qualified teachers available to handle English or Maths or Science subjects in the school, it is definitely open to the management to fill up the post by appointing a teacher in the relevant subjects, where there are no qualified or sufficient teachers available. Hence it is clear that the second respondent issued the circular without application of mind and without considering the relevant facts such as availability of teachers in the subjects of English, Maths and Science in a particular school.

13. The impugned order is also in violation of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules, wherein it is not stipulated anywhere that the particular school should follow the subject roster. Even G.O Ms. NO. 125 dated 12.11.2003, which is governing the appointment of Middle Grade Graduate Teachers in standards 6 to 8, nowhere states that subject-wise roster should be followed. In the absence of anything contained in the said Government Order, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned circular and if at all subject roster is to be followed by the management, it is the government who is competent to issue the subject roster in accordance with Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.

14. I have considered a similar issue in W.P No. 3823 of 2006 and by order dated 13.9.2006, I have taken a decision that the impugned circular issued by the second respondent is illegal as it is in violation of Annexure-V of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Though in this case the issue is not directly on that point, still, since the impugned circular prescribes the subject roster to the school that too by the second respondent, I am of the view that the principle set out in the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case.

15. It may be true that the first respondent is empowered to fix the subject roster after taking note of the educational requirement of a particular school or a group of school. Still the second respondent is not empowered to do the same and if the same is permitted it would be contrary to the Government order.

16. On the said issue the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1979) 2 SCC 150 (District Registrar, Palghat and others v. M.B Koyakutty and others) para 22 can be usefully referred to, which reads as follows,

“22. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that if the statutory rules framed by the Governor or any law enacted by the State Legislature under Article 309 is silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up that gap and supplement the rule by issuing administrative instructions not inconsistent with the statutory provisions already framed or enacted. The Executive instructions in order to be valid must run subservient to the statutory provisions. In the instant case, however, it could not be said that there was a gap or a void in the statutory provisions in the matter of promotion from the cadre of Lower Division Clerks to that of Upper Division Clerks.”

17. If the impugned circular is issued by the first respondent that would be a different matter as the respondent can state that the earlier Government Order issued is silent on the particular point of subject roster and therefore the Government can fill up that gap and supplement the rule by issuing administrative instructions not inconsistent with the statutory provisions already framed or enacted and it can fill up the gap in the statutory provisions. Since the impugned circulars are issued by the second respondent, the respondents are not entitled to urge the said argument and the same is also rejected.

18. Even if an executive order is issued by the first respondent, still whether the same is valid or not is decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1979) 4 SCC 507 (B.N Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka), which is followed in the decision reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 572 (V. Sreenivasa Reddy and others v. Govt. of A.P And others) wherein in para 23 it is held thus,

“23. In B.N Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, a Bench of three Judges, held that regularisation in violation of the statutory rules is not permissible, in exercise of the executive power of the State which have the effect of overriding the rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and that, therefore, no regularisation in exercise of the executive power under Article 162, in contravention of the statutory rules, is permissible.”

In (2006) 1 SCC 567 (State of Karnataka and others v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Association and others) (para 44) also the same view has been taken.

19. In view of the above stated reasons, the impugned circular issued by the second respondent should be treated as non-est and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of the teachers appointed in the managements of the petitioner schools without reference to the impugned circular. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

VCJ/VCS

The Corporate Manage... v. The State Of Tamil N...