Judgment :- Srinivasan.J. The appellant was appointed as Headmaster of Selva Damodharan High School, Palakkarai, Trichy in 1968. The school was upgraded into Higher Secondary School by Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.987, dated 7.6.1988. According to learned counsel for the Management of the School, it is a Higher Secondary School for all purposes from 1.6.1988 itself, though the Higher Secondary Classes were actually opened from 30.7.1988. The Management passed an order on 27.7.1988 reverting the appellant from the post of Headmaster and posted him as B.T. Assistant in the Higher Secondary School with effect from the forenoon of 30.7.1988. The reason given in the order is that consequent on the upgradation of the school, the appellant was not fully qualified to hold the post of Higher Secondary School Headmaster as per rules. Challenging the correctness of the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Joint Director of Schools (Education). By order dated 9.7.1990 the Joint Director allowed the appeal and set aside the order of reversion. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.720, Education, dated 28.4.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.1514, Education, dated 23.9.1988, the Joint Director held that the appellant had time till 31.5.1990 to qualify himself educationally to continue to hold the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School and he should have been allowed to continue as such. The Joint Director also relied on G.O.Ms.No.810, Education, dated 15.6.1990 whereunder the Government accepted the recommendation of the Director of School Education and ordered that the Headmasters of the Schools listed in the annexure to that order would continue to hold the post of Headmaster till they acquire the prescribed qualifications or till their retirement whichever is earlier. 2. Aggrieved management of the school filed W.P.No.11557 of 1990 challenging the correctness of the order of the Joint Director and also the validity, of the Government Order. The writ petition was allowed by a single Judge of this Court on 11.2.1991 quashing the Government Order and setting aside the order of the Joint Director. Learned Judge remanded the matter to the Joint Director for fresh disposal in accordance with law and to pass-orders on or before 15.5.1991. The writ petition was allowed by a single Judge of this Court on 11.2.1991 quashing the Government Order and setting aside the order of the Joint Director. Learned Judge remanded the matter to the Joint Director for fresh disposal in accordance with law and to pass-orders on or before 15.5.1991. The Joint Director passed an order on 31.5.1991 holding that there was no vacancy in the post of Headmaster at the time when the school was upgraded as G.O.Ms.No.1091, Education, dated 15.6.1978 was applicable and as per the said Government Order, the Headmaster of the High School continued, as the Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School, though he was not qualified, but he shall draw the salary of the Headmaster of the High School. In that view he held that the appellant was entitled to continue as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School and the management could not have appointed anybody else to that post. He also directed that the appellant shall draw the salary of the Headmaster of the High School till he attains the Post-Graduate qualification to be eligible for the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School. That order is challenged by the school management in W.P.No.8164 of 1991. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that after the passing of G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 28.4.1981, G.O.Ms.No.1091, dated 15.6.1978 ceases to be in force as the later rules were statutory Rules framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India. For that purpose, learned single Judge relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.640 and 669 of 1985 dated 24.6.1986. Learned single Judge also rejected the contention of the appellant that Clause 11 of G.O.Ms.No. 720 could protect him and permit him to continue in service, holding that a similar contention was rejected by a Division Bench in Review C.M.P.Nos.12479 of 1989 and 37 of 1990 in W.A.No.346 of 1989. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein has preferred this writ appeal. When the writ appeal came before a Division Bench, it was represented to the Bench that the correctness of the judgment in W.A.Nos.640 and 669 of 1985 was already doubted and a reference had been made to a larger Bench at the instance of a single Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein has preferred this writ appeal. When the writ appeal came before a Division Bench, it was represented to the Bench that the correctness of the judgment in W.A.Nos.640 and 669 of 1985 was already doubted and a reference had been made to a larger Bench at the instance of a single Judge. On that basis it was represented that this appeal could also be posted before the Full Bench which was to decide the correctness of the aforesaid Bench judgment. Accepting that representation, the Division Bench directed this matter also to be posted before the larger Bench along with other matters. Thus, this has come before us. 4. If the facts had been correctly represented before the Division Bench, there would not have been any need for a reference to the Full Bench. Unfortunately all the parties were under a wrong impression that the upgradation of the School into Higher Secondary School was only on 30.7.1988. All the affidavits filed by the parties including the counter affidavit filed by the Government and the orders passed by the authorities concerned refer only to that date. It was only this morning, learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that the School was upgraded or an earlier date in G.O.Ms.No.987, dated 7.6.1988. There is no dispute now that the school was actually upgraded with effect from 1.6.1988, the commencement of the academic year 1988-89. Hence we have to decide this case on the basis of the crucial fact that the school was upgraded on 1.6.1988 or atleast on 7.6.1988, the date of the Government Order. 5. When the High Schools were upgraded into Higher Secondary Schools, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.1091, dated 15.6.1978 framing certain Rules applicable to such Higher Secondary Schools. That Government Order also covers private schools which receive aid from the Government. Clause 4(2)(a) of the Government Order relates to Headmasters of the Aided Schools and Clause 4(2)(b) relate to Teachers and it is better to reproduce the entire Clause in this order as much of the argument of the appellant turns on its construction; "4.2 Aided Schools (a) Headmasters: (i) Headmasters with post graduate qualification and B.T./B.Ed. Clause 4(2)(a) of the Government Order relates to Headmasters of the Aided Schools and Clause 4(2)(b) relate to Teachers and it is better to reproduce the entire Clause in this order as much of the argument of the appellant turns on its construction; "4.2 Aided Schools (a) Headmasters: (i) Headmasters with post graduate qualification and B.T./B.Ed. working as Headmaster of High Schools may at the discretion of the management be posted as Headmasters of the Higher Secondary Schools under the same management, (ii) The Headmasters of a High School under private management when upgraded as a Higher Secondary School may also continue as the Headmaster of the said Higher Secondary School. (iii) Government direct that when a vacancy of Headmaster arises in future in the Higher Secondary Schools, the said vacancy should be filled in only by persons who are fully qualified to hold the post as per para 2(b) above. If such a person is not available, the post may be filled up by a Post-Graduate + B.Ed., qualified person. (b) Teachers: (i) All the teachers fully qualified as per para (2) (a) above, available in the same school upgraded as Higher Secondary School or in any other school under the same management shall be appointed as Higher Secondary Teachers. (ii) If adequate number of qualified persons are not available under the same Management, persons qualified according to para 2(b) may be allowed to handle the Higher Secondary Classes. (iii) Management of the Higher Secondary Schools shall report to the Chief Educational Officers the deployment of teachers with reference to (i) and (ii) above and also indicate the posts for which suitable candidates are not available under the Management, (iv) The vacancies indicated in (iii) above shall be filled in from the panel of names sent by the Chief Educational Officer, (v) The Chief Educational Officer shall see that the allotment of Aided School teachers from one management to another is made generally only within the Educational or Revenue District and only after consulting the teachers and managements involved." 6. As per the above Clause, the Headmaster of a High School under private management may also continue as Headmaster of the said Higher Secondary School when it is upgraded as such. Thereafter the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 28.4.1981 framing special Rules for the Tamjlnadu Higher Secondary Educational Service. As per the above Clause, the Headmaster of a High School under private management may also continue as Headmaster of the said Higher Secondary School when it is upgraded as such. Thereafter the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.720, dated 28.4.1981 framing special Rules for the Tamjlnadu Higher Secondary Educational Service. The preamble to the said Government Order provided that the qualifications and other service conditions prescribed in the appended notification for the post of Headmaster, Teachers and others will mutatis mutandis be followed in Aided Schools and other schools mentioned thereunder pending issue of amendments to the relevant rules. The service called Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service is constituted under the rules and the qualifications for the different classes and categories of officers are also prescribed in the rules. The rules are framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India insofar as the Government Schools are concerned. With reference to the private schools which receive aid from the Government, the rules cannot be treated as framed under Art.162 of the Constitution of India in exercise of the executive power of the Government. Those rules prescribe certain qualifications for the post of teachers in academic subjects and Teachers in languages. In 1988, the expressions Teachers in Academic subjects and Teachers in languages are substituted by the expression Post-Graduate Assistants in Academic subjects and Post-Graduate Assistants in languages respectively. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not possess the qualifications prescribed for the Post-Graduate Assistants in Academic subjects or Post-Graduate Assistants in language at the time when the Government Orders were passed and even now. The single Judge whoheard the writ petition has taken the view that G.O.Ms.No.720 has framed rules and automatically G.O.Ms.No.1091, dated 15.6.1978 is superseded thereby. Therefore, he concluded that the provisions in Clause 4(2) (a) (ii) enabling the Headmaster of High School to continue as the Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School which is upgraded as such, will not apply to the appellant herein as the school was upgraded only in 1988 and by that time and even before G.O.Ms.No.720 had come into force. Learned Judge has overlooked that G.O.Ms.No.720 can be considered to be statutory only insofar as it relates to Government Schools and that it is only an executive order in so far as it relates to Aided Schools. 8. Learned Judge has overlooked that G.O.Ms.No.720 can be considered to be statutory only insofar as it relates to Government Schools and that it is only an executive order in so far as it relates to Aided Schools. 8. Learned Judge has also overlooked that G.O.Ms.No.720 has not provided for the situation which arises on upgradation of the school from High School to Higher Secondary School. The rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.720 deal with the appointments and qualifications of the officers subsequent to the passing of the Government Order. There is no provision in the Government Order which relates to the immediate situation that prevails on the upgradation of a High School into a Higher Secondary School. Hence, the appellant will not fall under any of the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.720. Naturally, the appellant will fall under G.O.Ms.No.1091. The said Government Order has not been superseded insofar as it relates to the situation that prevails on the upgradation of a High School into a Higher Secondary School as the same has not been provided in G.O.Ms.No.720. Consequently, the appellant who was a Headmaster on the date of upgradation will continue as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School. The appellant will not by virtue of the upgradation cease to be a Headmaster in view of the specific provision contained in Clause 4(2)(a) of G.O.Ms.No. 1091, dated 15.6.1978. There was no vacancy in the post of Headmaster in the said school. Consequently, there is no question of appointing any other person to that post. So, the reasoning of the Joint Director of Schools (Education) is correct. Learned single Judge has overlooked the above two aspects of the matter and set aside the said order. He has placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.640 and 669 of 1985. The Division Bench has also expressed the view that after the rules are framed under G.O.Ms.No.720 under Art.309 of the Constitution of India they have superseded G.O.Ms.No. 1091 which was issued on 15.6.1978. The Division Bench has not taken note of the fact that there cannot be any rule under Art.309 of the Constitution of India with respect to private schools and insofar as G.O.Ms.No.720 deals with Government schools, the rules are statutory and fall under Art.309 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench has not taken note of the fact that there cannot be any rule under Art.309 of the Constitution of India with respect to private schools and insofar as G.O.Ms.No.720 deals with Government schools, the rules are statutory and fall under Art.309 of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the private schools are concerned, rules can be only under Art. 162 of the Constitution of India and executive in character. The judgment of the Division Bench insofar as it holds that rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.720 are statutory and supersede, the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.1091 as such is erroneous, in relation to the private schools which receive aid from the Government. 9. The other judgment on which the learned single Judge placed reliance is that of a Division Bench in Review C.M.P.Nos.12479 of 1939 and 37 of 1990 in W.A.No.346 of 1989. We find that the learned single Judge was a party to the Review C.M.P. who decided W.A.No.326 of 1989. The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition and the writ appeal was a circular issued by the Director of School Education on 3.5.1984. As per the said circular one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Headmasters was holding a post of a Post-Graduate Assistant. That circular was quashed in the writ petition on the footing that G.O.Ms.No.720, Education, dated 28.4.1981 did not prescribe such a qualification at the time when the circular was issued. That judgment was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.346 of 1989 holding that there was no such prescription in G.O.Ms.No.720. Unfortunately, when the matter came up by way of Review before another Division Bench to which one member of the Bench which decided the writ appeal was a party. It was represented that the Circular dated 3.5.1984 was only on the basis of the amendment to G.O.Ms.No.720 of 1981 introduced by G.O.Ms.No.452, Education Department, dated 24.3.1988. Unfortunately, the Division Bench accepted that position and observed that the Circular of the Director of School Education was based on the said amendment overlooking that the amendment came into existence only in 1988 and the Director of School Education could not have taken notice of the amendment in 1984 itself. On that footing, the Judgment of the Division Bench in the writ appeal was reviewed and the appeal was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition. On that footing, the Judgment of the Division Bench in the writ appeal was reviewed and the appeal was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition. The mistake committed by the Division Bench while dealing with the matter is quite obvious inasmuch as they have proceeded on the footing that the Director of School Education had taken note of an amendment which was subsequent to the circular. 10. In so far as this case is concerned, there is no difficulty whatever in accepting the contention of the appellant that on the date when the High School was upgraded into a Higher Secondary School, the appellant was holding the post of Headmaster under clause 4(2)(a)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.1091, dated 15.6.1978 and he was entitled to continue as Headmaster of Higher Secondary School, inasmuch as G.O.Ms.No.720 does not contain any provision with regard to the situation contemplated and provided in G.O.Ms.No. 1091, dated 15.6.1978. The later Government Order will not affect the position of the appellant herein. 11. Learned counsel for the management school raised the following contentions. The appellant was never appointed as Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School. There is no merit in this contention as the appellant continues to be the Headmaster of the said school on the upgradation of the said school on 1.6.1988 or 7.6.1988. By virtue of the Specific provision in G.O.Ms.No.1091. (ii) The appellant is not qualified to be a Headmaster as he has not acquired the academic qualifications even en this date. G.O.Ms.No. 1091 does not make any mention of the qualification of the Headmaster. It makes a distinction between a Headmaster and the Teacher. While it prescribes no condition for the Headmaster, it makes a provision with regard to teachers that they should be fully qualified and if qualified teachers are not available other persons qualified as provided in the Government Order should be allowed to handle the Higher Secondary Classes. This contention has no merit. (iii). Clause 11 of G.O.Ms.No.720 is applicable to first respondent. Clause 11 of G.O.Ms.No.720 contains a provision of saving: That clause reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules 2 and 6 above, the service of those persons who are holding on the date of issue of these special Rules, the post of Headmasters and Headmistresses, Teachers in Academic subjects. (iii). Clause 11 of G.O.Ms.No.720 is applicable to first respondent. Clause 11 of G.O.Ms.No.720 contains a provision of saving: That clause reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules 2 and 6 above, the service of those persons who are holding on the date of issue of these special Rules, the post of Headmasters and Headmistresses, Teachers in Academic subjects. Teachers in Languages and Physical Directors and Physical Directresses in higher secondary school and who possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the Annex shall be regularised after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954. and in respect of those persons who do not possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the Annex and who are holding such posts on this category on the date of issue of these special Rules shall be regularised only after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954 provided they acquire the said qualifications within a period of five years from the 1st July, 1978. If they fail to acquire the said qualification within the specified period they shall be replaced by suitable and qualified candidates.” Provided further they shall acquire the qualification regarding passing of Account Test within a period of years from the 19th September, 1983. “ (Proviso is inserted as per G.O.Ms.No. 1825, Education, dated 19th September, 1983)”. 12. We are unable to understand how this clause can help the school management. If this clause applies it will only help the appellant to continue in service as such, But, learned Special Government Pleader points out that this clause will only apply to Teachers and not to Headmasters. A perusal of the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.720 shows that the rules apply to appointments of Headmasters and Teachers after the passing of the Government Order. The • Headmaster of a private school is to be pointed only by promotion as the provision for direct recruitment by transfer will not apply in the case of private school. If it is a case of promotion as a Headmaster necessarily the promotion can be made only from classes II service. Hence, in the circumstances clause II of G.O.Ms.No.720 can apply only to the post of teacher and not to the post of Headmaster. If it is a case of promotion as a Headmaster necessarily the promotion can be made only from classes II service. Hence, in the circumstances clause II of G.O.Ms.No.720 can apply only to the post of teacher and not to the post of Headmaster. In any event, the Rule does not help the contention of School Management. 13. The next contention is that clause 4(2)(a)(ii) of G.O.Ms.No. 1091 gives a discretion to the management to continue the Headmaster of High School as the Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School and such discretion cannot be interfered with by the Government. There is no substance in this contention. Sub-clause (1) of Clause 4(2)(a) provides that the management has discretion to post Headmaster with Post-Graduate qualification and B.T./B.Ed. who were working as the Headmaster of High School as Headmaster of Higher Secondary School under the same management. In other words, that clause deals with situation where the same management is having more than one High School or Higher Secondary School and in such cases, the discretion is left to the management to post the Headmaster of High School as the Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School provided he has got Post-Graduate qualification and B.T./B.Ed. Sub-clause (ii) is worded in a different manner. While under Sub-clause (i) the emphasis is with reference to the Management, Subclause (ii) is with reference to the headmasters. Subclause (ii) provides that the Headmaster of High School may continue as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary school when the school is upgraded. Thus, the word ‘may’ used in the sub clause pertains to the Headmaster and not to the management and the option is therefore, only with the Headmaster and not with the management. The management cannot claim any discretion by virtue of the user of the word ‘may’ in Sub-clause (ii). The position is made further clear by reading Sub-clause (iii). Under that clause when a vacancy arises in future in a Higher Secondary School, the Government can direct that the said vacancy should be filled in only by persons who are fully qualified and if such a person is not available, the post may be filled in by a Post-Graduate Plus B.Ed, qualified person. This is a mandatory clause since the later part of clause (iii) refers to filling up of the Post when a vacancy arises in future. This is a mandatory clause since the later part of clause (iii) refers to filling up of the Post when a vacancy arises in future. A reading of such clauses, (ii) and (iii) clearly negatives the contention of learned counsel for the Management that there is a discretion left with the management to continue the Headmaster or discontinue him. 14. The next contention is that rule under G.O.Ms.No. 1091 is contrary to the statutory rule framed under Sec.19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Sec.19 of the said Act provides that the Government may make rules regulating the number, qualifications and conditions of service including promotion, pay, allowances, leave, pension, provident fund, etc., of the teachers and other persons employed in any private school. Sec.20(l) provides that no person who does not possess the qualifications prescribed under Sec.19 shall, on of after the date of the commencement of this Act, be employed as teacher, or other employee in any private school. Learned counsel draws our attention to Rule 15(3) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Those rules enjoin that in a regular vacancy a fully qualified candidate shall alone be appointed on a regular basis and promotions shall be made only on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. The rule is not applicable inasmuch as there is no vacancy in the post of Headmaster. As per G.O.Ms.No. 1091, the appellant who was Headmaster of a High School continues to be the Headmasterof Higher Secondary School and only when vacancy arises, the question of applying Rules 15(3) and (4) will arise. Hence, the contention has no merit. Another limb of this argument is G.O.Ms.No.720 has prescribed the qualifications and in the absence of specific rules framed under Sec.19 of the Act, the Rules prescribed in G.OMs.No.720 will apply and as the appellant does not satisfy the qualifications set out in those rules, he cannot be appointed as Headmaster. Here again, the management forgets that there is no vacancy and whether he is qualified or not, the appellant continues to be Headmaster by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1091 on the upgradation of the High School. The question of appointment will arise only if there is a vacancy. 15. Here again, the management forgets that there is no vacancy and whether he is qualified or not, the appellant continues to be Headmaster by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1091 on the upgradation of the High School. The question of appointment will arise only if there is a vacancy. 15. The next contention is that the order of reversion passed against the appellant by the management is administrative in character and there is no need for notice to be given to him before the order was passed. According to learned counsel, it is not a punishment. It is not necessary for us, to go into this contention as we have taken the view that the appellant is entitled by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1091 to continue as Headmaster and he cannot be reverted on the ground that he is not qualified to hold that post. In fact, the question was not raised by the appellant. The Government Pleader wanted to argue that there was no notice to the appellant before passing the order of reversion and the order is bad. It is wholly unnecessary for us to consider the nature of order of reversion. The only reason in the order of reversion is that the appellant is not qualified to hold the post of Headmaster. That is not a reason available to the management in view of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1091. 16. The next contention is that Sec.26 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 provides for absorption of teachers or other persons on retrenchment. According to learned counsel for the management, the appellant can be considered to be retrenched from the Higher Secondary School and posted in the High School as a B.T. Assistant and therefore, it is for the Government under Sec.26 of the Act to make suitable provision for absorption. There is no merit in this contention, as there is only one school, viz., Selva Damodharan School. That school which was a High School previously has become a Higher Secondary School on the upgradation with effect from 1.6.1988 or from 7.6.1988. Hence, there is no question of retrenching the appellant from Higher Secondary School to High School. Moreover, reversion to an inferior post is not retrenchment in the eye of law. Hence, this contention is rejected. 17. The next contention is that there is no appeal against the order in W.P. No.11557 of 1990 which quashed G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 15.6.1990. Hence, there is no question of retrenching the appellant from Higher Secondary School to High School. Moreover, reversion to an inferior post is not retrenchment in the eye of law. Hence, this contention is rejected. 17. The next contention is that there is no appeal against the order in W.P. No.11557 of 1990 which quashed G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 15.6.1990. Hence, according to the management the appellant is not entitled to continue as Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School, inasmuch as, G.O.Ms.No.810 which provided for such continuation has been quashed and the order in the writ petition has become final. The contention can be accepted if the continuation of the appellant was based only on G.O.Ms.No.810. There was no necessity at all for the Government to pass G.O.Ms.No.810, dated 15.6.1990 in view of the express provision in G.O.Ms.No.1091, dated 15.6.1978. It is only as a matter of abundant caution, the Government would appear to have passed G.O.Ms.No.810 with reference to certain schools specified in the Government order so that there cannot be any doubt as to continuance of Headmaster of High School as Headmaster of Higher Secondary School quashing of G.O.Ms.No.810 will not help the management to contend that the appellant is not entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.1091. It is seen that the learned single Judge who quashed the said Government Order directed the Joint Director of School Education to consider the matter afresh to pass orders in accordance with law before a particular date. If the learned Judge thought that the matter ended with the quashing of G.O.Ms.No.810, he would not have directed fresh disposal of the matter. The contention has no merit. 18. learned counsel for the management relies on various judgments of this Court. In those cases the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.720 are held to be statutory in character and they have superseded G.O.Ms.No.1091, dated 15.6.1978. Reliance is placed on T.Senthilnathan v. Chief Educational Officer. South Arcot District. 1985 Writ L.R. 533. Government of Tamil Nadu v. S.Duraipaiidian, 1990 Writ L.R. 481, K.Thangavelu v. Government of Tamil Nadu. 1992 Writ L.R. 145.A.Periasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu. 1992 Writ L.R. 404 and The Secretary-cum-Correspondent. Z.K.M. Higher Secondary School. Bodinaikkanur, Madurai District and another v. R. Kandaraj. W.A.Nos.640 and 660 of 1985. dated 24.6.1986. We have been taken through those judgments. Government of Tamil Nadu v. S.Duraipaiidian, 1990 Writ L.R. 481, K.Thangavelu v. Government of Tamil Nadu. 1992 Writ L.R. 145.A.Periasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu. 1992 Writ L.R. 404 and The Secretary-cum-Correspondent. Z.K.M. Higher Secondary School. Bodinaikkanur, Madurai District and another v. R. Kandaraj. W.A.Nos.640 and 660 of 1985. dated 24.6.1986. We have been taken through those judgments. We find that the crucial aspect of the matter that G.O.Ms.No.720 is not statutory insofar as it relates to the private schools has been overlooked in those judgments. Hence, to the extent to which those judgments hold that with reference to private schools, G.O.Ms.No.720 is statutory in character and supersedes G.O.Ms.No.1091 in entirety are erroneous and they do not lay down good law. Hence, they are overruled to that extent. 19. Finally, it is contended by learned counsel for the Management that their appointee by name Kasthuri Rangan has been serving as Headmaster from 30.7.1988 and he should not be disturbed at this stage by allowing the appeal and holding that the appelant is entitled to continue as Headmaster. The fact that the said Kasthuri Rangan continues in service was Headmaster from 30.7.1988 till date is disputed by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Government. It is not necessary for us to go into the controversy for the purpose of this case. Insofar as this case is concerned, the pendency of the litigation for all these years cannot deprive the appellant of his right to hold the post of Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School. As soon as the order of reversion was passed on 27.7.1988, he filed a civil suit in the Court of District Munsif Trichy in O.S.No.1369 of 1988 and obtained an order of interim injunction on 29.7.1988 restraining the implementation of the order of reversion. Thus, he has approached the court immediately after the order of reversion was communicated to him. Hence, he cannot be made to suffer because the proceedings have been pending in courts for such a long time. Moreover, against the order passed by the Joint Director of School Education on 9.7.1990 allowing the appeal preferred by this appellant against the order of reversion, the appointee of the management, viz., Kasthuri Rangan did not take any further proceedings challenging that order. It is only the management of the school which filed W.P.No.11557 of 1990. Moreover, against the order passed by the Joint Director of School Education on 9.7.1990 allowing the appeal preferred by this appellant against the order of reversion, the appointee of the management, viz., Kasthuri Rangan did not take any further proceedings challenging that order. It is only the management of the school which filed W.P.No.11557 of 1990. Again after the Joint Director passed an order on 31.5.1991 permitting the appellant to continue as Headmaster and holding that the order of promotion made in favour of Kasthuri Rangan as Headmaster was unsustainable, the said Kasthuri Rangan has not chosen to challenge that order. It is only the management which filed W.P.No. 8164 of 1991 out of which the present writ appeal has arisen. It is submitted by learned counsel for the management that Kasthuri Rangan was not made a party to the appeal before the Joint Director. Even so, the order of Joint Director is one clearly against him and he is a person aggrieved by that order. He ought to have challenged that order if he wanted to get that order set aside. Instead, the management has been fighting the battle on his behalf. Now the management cannot plead on the equitable basis is that Kasthuri Rangan was serving for a long period as Headmaster. 20. In the result, all the contentions are without merit and found against the management. The writ appeal is allowed. W.P.No.8164 of 1991 is dismissed. Parties will bear their respective costs.