Judgment : The petitioner R.Veerabhadra Pillai, having the educational qualifications, namely, B.A. (Tamil), B.Sc, (Botany) and B.T. joined as a B.T. Science Assistant in Zamindarani Kamulammal Memorial Higher Secondary School (then known as Victoria Memorial High School) of which the Secretary and Correspondent of the school committee is the third respondent) on 6. 1960. Similarly the 4th respondent R.Kamaraj, having educational qualifications, namely, B.Sc, and B.Ed., joined as a B.T. Science Assistant in the third respondent’s school on 28. 1975. The petitioner, while functioning as such, obtained Post Graduate Degree, namely, M.A. in Tamil in 1964. Likewise, the fourth respondent also got the Post-Graduate degree, that is, M.A in Tamil in 1978. 2.. During the academic year 1978-79, Government of Tamilnadu by its G.O.Ms.No.2464, Education, dated 111. 1977 upgraded many a High School in the State of Tamilnadu as Higher Secondary Schools, with a new pattern of education called ‘Plus 2 system. “ In connection with the implementation of the scheme of Higher Secondary Education, the Government of Tamilnadu also issued G.O.Ms.No.1091 Education dated 16. 78 wherein the qualification for the teachers of the academic subject was prescribed as post graduate degree in the particular subject to be handled in the Higher Secondary Classes with the Training qualification of B.Ed./B.T. As per the said G.O., while selecting fully the qualified persons for manning the posts of Tamil teachers for Higher Secondary Classes, the order of priority as mentioned below has to be followed: "1. Tamil Vidwan or Pulavar holdingposts of Tamil Pandit in High Schools. M.A. (Tamil) +B.Ed. 2. -do- -do- M.A. (Tamil)+Pandits Training orSecondary Grade Training 3. B.A. (Tamil) M.A. (Tamil) + B.Ed. 4. Degree in subject other than Tamil(working as B.T. Assistant in subjectother than Tamil) M.A. (Tamil) + B.Ed. The said G.O. has also permitted B.T. Assistants working in High schools to handle Higher Secondary Classes, the subjects in which they had obtained the basic degree if sufficient number of teachers with the requisite qualifications were not available. Such an induction is however subject to the condition that they will become ineligible to handle Higher Secondary Classes, when a person with Post Graduate qualification in the required subject with B.Ed./B.T. becomes available. 3. In the third respondent’s school, Plus 2 courses were introduced during the academic year 1978-79, as the said school was upgraded as one of Higher Secondary Schools. 3. In the third respondent’s school, Plus 2 courses were introduced during the academic year 1978-79, as the said school was upgraded as one of Higher Secondary Schools. One Pandian, who was working as Grade-I, Tamil Pandit in the 3rd respondent’s School having the requisite preferential qualification was appointed as post graduate teacher in Tamil. The petitioner, it is said, was not appointed as a post Graduate teacher in Tamil, since Pandian was having the preferential qualification. However, he was inducted as a teacher authorised to handle Plus 2 classes in Science subject, namely, Botany, since no post Graduate teacher in Botany was available then. In the year 1979, one more vacancy arose for the position of a post graduate teacher in Tamil. Consequently, the petitioner, on his applying for the said post, was favourably considered and had been appointed so on 9. 1979 by the third respondent. 4.. The fourth respondent, aggrieved by the said appointment of the petitioner, preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the appeal so preferred faced dismissal, followed by order dated 11. 1979 in K.Dis.No.l781/3/G8/79. 5. The matter was further agitated by the fourth respondent by preferring further appeal in C.M.A.No.6 of 1981 before the first respondent-Tribunal for Recognised Private School (Subordinate Judge), Periyakulam, Madurai District, which in turn, allowed the appeal on 30th March, 1984 setting aside the order of the second respondent dated 11. 1979. 6. In the appeal so preferred, the petitioner was not at all impleaded as a party-respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 herein alone were impleaded as party respondents 1 and 2 therein. The petitioner, however, retired on superannuation on 33. 1984 in the promotional post of Post-Gradu-ate Teacher in Tamil. 7. One Doraipandian Tamil Pandit of the third respondent’s school filed W.P.No.4323 of 1984 on the file of this Court praying for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order of the first respondent and consider him for appointment of Post-Graduate teacher in Tamil language and this Court admitted the said writ petition and also passed ad interim stay of operation of the impugned order dated 24. 1984 in W.M.P.No.6767 of 1984. The District Educational Officer, Periyakulam by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.l0028/G/84, dated 26. 1984 in W.M.P.No.6767 of 1984. The District Educational Officer, Periyakulam by his proceedings Na.Ka.No.l0028/G/84, dated 26. 84 decided to grant retirement benefits only on the basis of the salary drawn by the petitioner as an inducted teacher till the disposal of the said writ petition. The petitioner, in his turn, feeling that his interest is also affected, resorted to the present action under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of the first respondent. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service three contentions: .(1) The first respondent-Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. .(2) The impugned order is bad in law as a consequence of the non-impleading of the petitioner and since his interests are vitally affected, he was a necessary party to the proceedings. .(3) Since the petitioner is having a preferential qualification than that of the fourth respondent, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1091, Education, dated 16. 1978 his appointment as Post-graduate Teacher in the third respondent’s school is perfectly valid and the impugned order setting aside his appointment and appointing the fourth respondent is not at all sustainable in law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting fourth respondent would, however, repel those submissions. 10. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, however, left the matter to the court without making any submission on this behalf. 11. 1 may now delve deep to find out the tenability or otherwise of the rival submissions, as noted above. 12 Sec.24 of the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Tamilnadu Act No.29/1974)-for short ‘the Act’) dealing with second appeal in case of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or the termination of appointment of teachers or other persons employed in private schools is couched in the following terms: "If the appeal under Sec.23 was against the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or the termination otherwise of the appointment of any teacher or other person employed in any private school, such teacher or other person or the educational agency aggrieved by any order made in any such appeal, may prefer an appeal against that appellate order to the Tribunal.". 13. A plain reading of this section will clearly show that an appeal will lie only against (1) dismissal, (2) removal from service, (3) reduction in rank or, (4) termination of service otherwise. 13. A plain reading of this section will clearly show that an appeal will lie only against (1) dismissal, (2) removal from service, (3) reduction in rank or, (4) termination of service otherwise. Not one of those categories would take within it a case like the one on hand, namely, filling up the post of a Post-Graduate Teacher in Tamil, call it as appointment or call it as promotion. In this view of the matter,it goes without saying that the first respondent-Tribunal grossly erred in entertaining the appeal, in the sense of not having any requisite jurisdiction to do so. 14. On this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order of Mohan, J., (as he then was) in R.Kandaraj v. The Secretary-cum-Correspondent, Z.K.N. Higher Secondary School, Bodinaickanur, W.P.No. 2375 of 1984, dated 17. 1985 and the said learned Judge expressed in the paragraph 7 thus: "....A plain reading of this section will clearly show that the appeal will lie only against; .(i) dismissal; .(ii) removal from service; (iii) reduction in rank; and (iv) termination of service otherwise. Not one of these categories would take within it a case like the one on hand, viz., filling up the vacancy of a Headmaster, call it as appointment or call it as promotion. Therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in entertaining the appeal and more so in interfering with the order of the Joint Director.“. 15. The order in the said petition was further agitated by preference of two writ appeals, being The Secretaty-cum-Correspondent, Z.K.M. Higher Secondary School, Bodinaickanur v. R.Kandaraj, W.A.Nos.640 and 669 of 1985, and those writ appeals had been allowed by a Division Bench consisting of M.N.Chandurkar, C.J. and Srinivasan, J., by order dated 26. 1986. But nonetheless, the Division Bench upheld the view of learned single Judge as respects the question of jurisdiction by expressing thus in paragraph 4: ”The main contention of Kandaraj was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the Management. The learned single Judge took the view that the only appeal which was provided under Sec.24 of the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was an appeal which would lie only against 1.. Dismissal; 2. Removal from service; 3. Reduction in rank; and 4.. Termination of service otherwise. The learned single Judge took the view that the only appeal which was provided under Sec.24 of the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was an appeal which would lie only against 1.. Dismissal; 2. Removal from service; 3. Reduction in rank; and 4.. Termination of service otherwise. The learned Judge found and in our opinion rightly so, that the matter relating to “promotion for filling up the post of the Headmaster did not fall under Sec.24 of the Act. He, therefore, took the view that the Tribunal had grossly erred in entertaining the appeal and interfering with the order of the Joint Director.” It is thus very clear that the first respondent-Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 16. The petitioner was the person to be affected by the impugned order. As adverted to earlier he was not at all impleaded as a party-respondent and only two respondents, who are no one also except the present respondents 2 and 3 alone were impleaded. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s interest had been vitally affected and the order having been passed without his presence must have to be necessarily held as not sustainable. 17.. I may now consider the inter se qualification of the petitioner and the fourth respondent. There is no pale of controversy that the petitioner is a B. A. graduate in Tamil as well as B.Sc, graduate in Botany, besides possessing post graduate, qualification in Tamil, namely, M.A. (Tamil) and B.T. while the fourth respondent is possessed of B.Sc, Degree, post graduate degree in Tamil, namely, M.A. and B.Ed:, Even in getting post-graduation in Tamil, the petitioner got such a qualification in the year 1964 while the fourth respondent in 1978. As per G.O.Ms.No.1091, Education, dated 16. 78, on the date when the vacancy arose in the third respondent’s school for a position in a post-graduate Teacher in Tamil, the petitioner was having the preferential qualifications than that of the fourth respondent and in that view of the matter, his appointment as a post-graduate teacher in Tamil in the third respondent’s school in preference to the fourth respondent cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable. As such, the impugned order cannot at all be sustained as it is contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid G.O. 18. As such, the impugned order cannot at all be sustained as it is contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid G.O. 18. In the view, that I have taken on submissions 1 to 3, it goes without saying that the writ petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for and accordingly the same is allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. There will, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances, of the case.