Judgment : 1. Heard, bom sides. By consent of both sides the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in the above writ petition has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the fourth respondent from proceeding further with the domestic enquiry as per letter dated 27.1.1997 against me petitioner. The said letter runs as follows: Date: 27.1.1997 “Mrs.C.N.Lekha Headmistress St.ThomasHigh School Marthoma Nagar Gudalur (Nilgiris) Dear Madam, Sub: Findings of domestic enquiry - Charges proved - Personal hearing ordered - Reg. The Enquiry Officer has given a finding to the effect mat the charges framed against you were proved. The copy of the report of me enquiry officer is enclosed for your reference, In this regard, the school committee proposes to hold a personal enquiry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against you. You are therefore called upon to attend before the school committee on 7th February, 1997 at 10.30 a.m. at the office of the undersigned at Door No.10/583, Court Road (StThomas English High School), Gudalur, the Nilgiris, for a personal enquiry. Since it is a personal enquiry, advocates will not be allowed to participate. In case you fail to attend for the personal enquiry, it will be presumed that you have no defence and the matter would proceed on merits. Yours faithfully, Encl: Report of Domestic Enquiry, sd. (Rev.THOMAS P.CHANDY) Correspondent.” 3. Mr.M. Krishanppan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the fourth respondent has no authority to issue the impugned letter and if at all, the enquiry has to be conducted and proceeded with only by the school Committee. 4. The respondent School claims that the School is a minority school, and therefore Sec.15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation Act, 1973 which enables the constitution of school committee itself is held not applicable to the fourth respondent as per the decision of a Division Bench of mis Court in W.A. No.295 of 1975 dated 24.9.1976 and W.P. No.4478 of 1974 etc. batch cases. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument relies upon the decision reported in N.Sampathu v. The Chief Educational Officer N.Sampathu v. The Chief Educational Officer N.Sampathu v. The Chief Educational Officer, (1989)2 MLJ. batch cases. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument relies upon the decision reported in N.Sampathu v. The Chief Educational Officer N.Sampathu v. The Chief Educational Officer N.Sampathu v. The Chief Educational Officer, (1989)2 MLJ. 263 wherein the Division Bench while interpreting Sec.19 of the Act and Rule 15(2); of the Rules has held as follows: “The provisions of the Act relating to School Committee, its constitution and functions having been held to be in applicable to private schools run by minority institutions by the Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4478 of 1974 etc. Batch - Society of the Brothers of the sacred heart of Jesus, Palayamkottai, Tinmelveli, Dated by Ref. Brother A.Thomas, S.M.J. General Manager and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Madras and two othersorder dated 17.12.1975, Rule 15(2); must be held to have become unworkable since it contemplates only the school committee of private schools entering into an agreement of service with the staff. This, in our view, is a desperate thinking Sec.19 of the Act and Rule 15(2); of the Rules have not come within the scope of the pronouncement of the Bench, Sec.19 speaks about the rule-making power of the Government, regulating the conditions of service. Rule 15 speaks about the qualifications and conditions of service of staff in private schools, The statutory prescriptions do apply to private schools manned even by minority institutions. Any difficulty experienced with reference to the formator formality of entering into the contract shall not abrogate the very statutory prescriptions regarding conditions of service. Furthermore, there is no specific attack, founded on pleadings with regard to either Sec.19 of the Act or rule 15 of the Rules.” 7. In mis connection it may be noted that Sec.19 of the Act and Rule 15 of the Rules deal with the qualifications, conditions of services, etc., of teachers and other persons employed in private schools. 8. In the abovesaid decision, there is no discussion about Sec.15 of the Act which relates to the constitution of the School Committee, which is admittedly held as inapplicable by a Division Bench of this Court by an earlier order dated 24.9.1976. 9. 8. In the abovesaid decision, there is no discussion about Sec.15 of the Act which relates to the constitution of the School Committee, which is admittedly held as inapplicable by a Division Bench of this Court by an earlier order dated 24.9.1976. 9. As a result, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Correspondent of the School has no authority to issue the impugned letter relating to the enquiry proposed therein as School Committee alone is competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner is not tenable. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the letter dated 27.1.1997 of the fourth respondent. 10. However, in the interest of justice I direct the fourth respondent/ Correspondent of the School, to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to pass final orders on merits after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, W.M.P. Nos.5981 and 17940 of 1997 are dismissed.