ORDER 1. The petitioner, who was working as tutor-cum-Warden, Government Boys Hostel for Scheduled Castes, Sethiathope had the benefit of appointment by transfer as Headmaster, Government High School (Harijan Welfare Department), Kanniga-puram, Madras, on 22.7.1973, by the proceedings of the second respondent. On 24.3.1975 his scale of pay was fixed by the proceedings of the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Madras City, Madras-1 at Rs.450-25-750 plus usual allowances with effect from 1.8.1973, when he joined the post, and the petitioner was allowed to draw the arrears of salary and allowances from 1.8.1973. This proceeding was admittedly issued in accordance with the instructions contained in the proceedings of the second respondent dated 6.3.1975. On 14.11.1975, services of the petitioner in the Cadre of B.T. Headmaster (Grade II) were regularised with effect from 1.8.1973 and he was sanctioned two periodical increments by the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Kancheepuram. By that time, the petitioner was working in the Cadre of B.T. Headmaster in the Welfare High School, Nagalkeni. 2. On 25.9.1978, the seniority of the non-Gazetted Headmasters, working in the Welfare High Schools in Chengalpattu District was fixed by the proceedings of the District Collector of Chengalpattu District at Kancheepuram and the petitioner was given the second rank and the third respondent was given the third rank. On 22.2.1979 the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Kancheepuram, passed orders declaring the petitioner to have satisfactorily completed the probation in the cadre of High School Headmasters on the afternoon of 31.7.1975. After all these, on 27.2.1979 by the impugned order, it was notified by the first respondent that the very appointment of the petitioner was not in order in the light of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Subordinate Service and further the Harijan Welfare High School, Kanniga-puram, where the petitioner was first posted as Headmaster was not eligible for the post of Headmaster on the time-scale of pay at Rs.450-25-750 and the said School was only eligible for the post of Headmaster in the Time-Scale of pay at Rs.300-15-420-20-500 and hence there was a direction to recover the over-payments. The recommendations of the second respondent to ratify the actions were not accepted by the first respondent. This has been followed up by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 5.6.1980, whereby petitioner, who was working then as Head-master, Harijan Welfare High School, Vadagarai, Chengalpattu District, was directed to be reverted as Tutor-cum-Warden. 3. Mr. The recommendations of the second respondent to ratify the actions were not accepted by the first respondent. This has been followed up by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 5.6.1980, whereby petitioner, who was working then as Head-master, Harijan Welfare High School, Vadagarai, Chengalpattu District, was directed to be reverted as Tutor-cum-Warden. 3. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in impugning the above proceedings, would make two-fold submissions. One is that even assuming that the appointment, of the petitioner was not in accordance with the Special Rules governing the Tamil Nadu Harijan Welfare Subordinate Service, the facts of the case, as narrated above do warrant the application of the principle of equitable estoppel, to sustain the appointment of the petitioner and to nullify the present proceedings. In answer, Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned Government Advocate representing respondents 1 and 2, would submit that the Special Rules in respect of Headmasters of Secondary Schools contemplates three methods of recruitment, as indicated below; “1. District recruitment; or 2. Promotion from teachers in Secondary Schools with a degree in teaching; or 3. Recruitment by transfer from any other service Learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner did not come within any of the above three channels, because the appointment of the petitioner was not a case of direct recruitment, it was not a case of promotion of a teacher in a Secondary School, and it was also not a case of recruitment by transfer from any other service, and hence the very appointment of the petitioner was irregular and such irregularity could always be rectified and that is exactly what had happened in the present proceedings. I do not think that the answer given by the learned Government Advocate is a convincing one, if we take note of the facts of the case, to dissuade this Court from applying the principle of equitable estoppel. Apart from the aspect of ignoring the rules, it is not claimed that the Authorities of the State, who passed all these proceedings lacked the power and jurisdiction to issue the same; If they ignored the rules, they may be culpable, but the petitioner, after he had all the benefits of the proceedings, should not be put to prejudice by pulling down all his expectations built on those proceedings. In similar contingencies, this Court has applied the principle of equitable estoppel and I had occasion to refer to the principle, after referring to the earlier pronouncements of this Court, and apply the same to more or less similar facts in C.G. Mercylin v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras-35 W.P.No.1097 of 1980, Order dated 8.7.1986. This is sufficient for the petitioner to succeed. 4. However, the further attempt on the part of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was to say that the rule itself has not been breached, while the petitioner was appointed to the post of Headmaster. He submits that the instructions dated 4.1.1975 issued by the first respondent equate the post of Wardens/Matrons to Secondary Grade Teachers and if the matter is viewed in that light, the petitioner would come within channel 2, namely, promotion from teachers in Secondary Schools with a degree in teaching. I need not necessarily examine this aspect, because I have sustained the first ground of attack. 5. The third respondent has been impleaded subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and she is being represented by Mr. P.R.P.K. Venkatasubramanian. The third respondent through her learned Counsel would claim that she was senior to the petitioner and the rule of seniority alone should govern in making the appointment and since it was breached, the impugned order must be sustained. First of all, it must be pointed out that rule 2(b) of the Special Rules does not say ‘seniority’ as the sole criterion and it speaks that ‘Promotion to the posts shall be made only on merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal’. I did not hear any plea put forth on behalf of the third respondent that as per the norms of this rule, she ought to have been preferred at the time when the petitioner was originally appointed, even as early as 1973. Even otherwise, when the inter se seniority was fixed on 25.9.1978, giving the third respondent, the third rank below the petitioner, the third respondent had chosen to keep quiet and it is too late in the day for her to raise a voice of protest at this juncture, when the petitioner alone has come to this Court expressing a grievance of his own, basing his case on the principle of equitable estoppel, which I have sustained as above. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.