Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM, J. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to designate the petitioner as Assistant Head Master in Thevanga Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore, taking into account the entire service rendered by the petitioner as B.T. Assistant. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : According to him, he was a pointed initially as B.T. Assistant in Rajalakshmi Mills High School, Singanallur, Coimbatore, on June 4, 1962. He served there. in that capacity upto May 31, 1967. He joined the 1st respondent's school on June 5, 1967 as B.T. Assistant. There was a gap of days occurring between his relieving from the old school and joining the present institution which, delay was condoned by the Education Department. The school became a higher secondary school in July, 1988. The petitioner has put in an overall service of 26 years as B.T. Assistant. As per G.O.Ms. 887 dated June 5, 1979 of the, Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, in any school with a pupil strength exceeding 750, the senior most graduate P.G. Assistant or Tamil Pandit Grade 1, or Physical Director getting B.T. scale of pay available in the concerned High School or Higher Secondary School may be designated as Assistant Headmaster and a special pay of Rs. 25/- per month may be paid. The Rule applies to both, Government and Aided Schools. The first respondent's school is an Aided School. The service conditions are governed by Tamil Nadu Education Service Rules. The overall authority is the third respondent. In the first week of December, 1988, the petitioner approached the first respondent giving a letter requesting for designation as Assistant Headmaster, since he is the senior most B.T. Assistant. By proceedings dated June 9, 1979 the third respondent has informed that the petitioner's service in the first respondent's school will alone be considered for designation as Assistant Head Master, and his earlier services cannot be counted. The said proceeding is not a Government Order. It is merely a letter issued by the third respondent. The same is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and fair play. The said proceeding is not a Government Order. It is merely a letter issued by the third respondent. The same is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and fair play. In view of the stand of the third respondent, first respondent school has been refusing him to designate him as Assistant Head Master and is proposing to designate another person as Assistant Head Master. Several representations given by him through the Association have not been of any avail. Since the petitioner has no other remedy, he has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.3. First respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is contended that the petitioner herein was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the first respondent school with effect from June 5, 1967. The said appointment was made on the basis of the application submitted by the writ petitioner on April 21, 1967. It is stated that the services, if any, rendered in another private management, viz., Rajalakshmi Mills High School, Singanallur cannot be clubbed for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the first respondent's school for the petitioner as sought to be made out by the petitioner. The petitioner who has entered the service of the first respondent school on June 5, 1967 cannot claim seniority above one C. Rajamanickam, another B.T. Assistant, who claims to be appointed earlier on regular basis in the first respondent school. It is further stated that the petitioner was not posted to the first respondent school on transfer, but he was appointed on probation for the first time on June 5, 1967 in response to an application submitted by him on April 21, 1967. Each private school is a separate and distinct unit and hence the petitioner claim to club his earlier service rendered under a different management for the purpose of seniority is untenable and misconceived. It is also stated that the said Rajamanickam is the senior most B.T. Assistant and he has rightly been designated as Assistant Headmaster. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, second respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that first respondent school comes under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. On behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, second respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that first respondent school comes under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974. In respect of Aided Institutions, each aided school is a separate 'Unit of appointment' for the purpose of appointment, transfer, promotion etc. As per G.O.Ms. No. 1580 education dated October 18, 1969, if any member of the teaching staff in an aided secondary school, or elementary school or training school resigns his teaching staff and joins in the same post in a different aided school, the pay that was last drawn by him in the previous school shall be allowed to the teacher in the new school in which, he joins subsequent to his resignation. Thus necessary provision too protection to pay only has been made in the above Government Order. If one teacher employed in any aided school is transferred and appointed on migration to another aided school after getting the prior approval of the appropriate authority of the Department, such teacher will have to lose his seniority and he will be treated as the junior most teacher in the seniority list of teachers of o relevant category maintained in the new school as per G.O.Ms. No. 1289 Education dated June 18, 1982. It is further stated that the petitioner's incremental service in the first respondent's school would alone count for promotion and consideration of seniority. It is further stated that there is no Government Order to extend the benefit of taking into account the entire period of service put in by the teacher under various aided schools for the purpose of seniority as to stated by the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to claim the above concession for the purpose of seniority. Only for the purpose of constitution of School Committee in Aided Schools, there is a statutory provision as-wherein the seniority is to be determined with reference to the total service rendered by the teacher in any recognised school. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.5. Only for the purpose of constitution of School Committee in Aided Schools, there is a statutory provision as-wherein the seniority is to be determined with reference to the total service rendered by the teacher in any recognised school. With these averments, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and learned Government Advocate for Respondents 2 and 3. 6. Mr. P. K. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking me through the relevant Rules, more particularly Rules 12 and 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), has submitted that the entire service rendered by the petitioner has to be considered. In other words, according to him, the services rendered by the petitioner in the erstwhile school, namely, Rajalakshmi Mills High School, Singanallur, Coimbatore for the period from June 4, 1962 to May 31, 1967 have also to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. P. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for first respondent-management has submitted that inasmuch as the Petitioner by joined the first respondent's school by making proper application as fresh appointment, only the services rendered by him in the first respondent's school has to be considered for the post of Assistant Headmaster. He also submitted that as per the statutory provisions, the first respondent has rightly considered the services rendered by the petitioner in their school. Likewise, Ms. S. Manjula, learned Government Advocate, while adopting the argument of the learned counsel for the first res, Pondent, has submitted that as per the Rules, the services rendered by the petitioner in the first respondent's school alone have to be considered and the same have been rightly considered by the first respondent. Accordingly she' also prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8. There is no dispute that petitioner joined the first respondent's school only on June 5, 1967 as B.T. Assistant. It is true that previously he was employed as B.T. Assistant in Rajalakshmi Mills High School, Singanallur, Coimbatore, from June 4, 1962 to May 31, 1967. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8. There is no dispute that petitioner joined the first respondent's school only on June 5, 1967 as B.T. Assistant. It is true that previously he was employed as B.T. Assistant in Rajalakshmi Mills High School, Singanallur, Coimbatore, from June 4, 1962 to May 31, 1967. It is the case of the first respondent that after resigning the said post from the Rajalakshmi Mills High School, Singanallur, the petitioner gave a, fresh application before the first respondent and on that basis he was selected and appointed as B.T. Assistant in the first respondent's school with effect from June 5, 1967. No doubt, it is true that the District Education Officer, Coimbatore, condoned the period of break between' June 1, 1967 and June 5, 1967 with respect to fixation of salary and he was placed before the existing B.T. Assistant C. Rajamanickam, who was appointed on June 9, 1964 in the first, respondent's school. Now the only question is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in the Rajalakshmi Mills High School during the period from June 4, 1962 to May 31, 1967 have to be considered for the purpose of posting him, as Assistant Headmaster in the first respondent's school. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire services including the service rendered prior to the joining of the first respondent's school have to be considered and it is the, case of the respondents that the services rendered in the first respondent's school alone have to be considered as per the Rules.9. Admittedly there is no specific provision either in the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") on, this aspect. However, Mr. P. K. Rajagopal by relying on Explanation 11 to sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules has submitted that the petitioner is justified in his claim. Rule 12 deals with constitution of School Committee. As per Rule 12(3), the School Committee constituted by the educational agency shall consist of not more than 6 number of members. They are one Headmaster of the school, three senior most teachers of the School, one parent teacher Association nominee and one senior most non-teach in, staff. Rule 12 deals with constitution of School Committee. As per Rule 12(3), the School Committee constituted by the educational agency shall consist of not more than 6 number of members. They are one Headmaster of the school, three senior most teachers of the School, one parent teacher Association nominee and one senior most non-teach in, staff. In this regard, Explanation to Rule (3) says that for purpose of this rule, the seniority shall be determined with reference to the total service rendered by teachers or non-teaching staff as the case may be in any recognised school or schools. He very much emphasised the words "in any recognised school or schools". It is true that for the purpose of School Committee while considering the man power of the school the entire services rendered the teacher in any recognised school or schools have to be considered. Admittedly, there is no similar provision in the Rules with regard to seniority and promotion. The other Rule relied on by the learned counsel is Rule 15 which speaks about qualifications, conditions of service of teachers and other persons. Here again, there is no clause which requires the Management or the Educational Authority to consider the services rendered in other institutions. In this regard, I shall refer various Government Orders issued from time to time governing the issue. As per G.O.Ms. No. 887 Education dated June 5, 1979, senior most B.T. Assistant or Post-graduate Assistant or Tamil Pandit Grade 1 or Physical Director getting B.T. scale of pay working in the High/Higher Secondary School concerned alone can be designated as Assistant Headmaster and special pay of Rs. 25/- p.m. he allowed from the school year 1979, if the pupil strength of the said High/Higher Secondary School is 750 or more. These orders are applicable to the High/Higher Secondary Schools under all types of managements. There is no dispute that the first respondent's school is recognised by the Department of School Education and it comes under the purview of the said Act and Rules. In respect of Aided Institutions each aided school is a separate 'Unit of Appointment' for the purposes of appointment, transfer, promotion etc. If any aided management is declared as "Corporate Body" duly approved by the department as such, various aided schools under that "Corporate Body" will form as one 'Unit of Appointment' for the purposes of appointment, transfer, promotion etc. As per G.O.Ms. If any aided management is declared as "Corporate Body" duly approved by the department as such, various aided schools under that "Corporate Body" will form as one 'Unit of Appointment' for the purposes of appointment, transfer, promotion etc. As per G.O.Ms. No. 1580 Education dated October 18, 1969, if any member of the teaching staff in an aided secondary school or elementary school or training school resigned his teaching post and joins in the same post in a different aided school, the pay that was last drawn by him in the previous school shall be allowed to the teacher in the new school in which he joins subsequent to his resignation. Necessary provision for protection of pay only has been made in the said Government Order. It is also clear that even if one teacher employed in any aided school is transferred and appointed on migration to another aided school after getting the prior approval of the appropriate authority of the department, such teacher will have to lose his seniority and he will he treated as the junior most teacher in the seniority list of teachers of relevant category maintained in the new school as per G.O.Ms. No. 1289 Education dated June 18, 1982. It is also clear that the rules and regulations prescribed for Government school teachers cannot be made applicable to Aided School Teachers. It is further seen that on the basis of the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. 887 Education dated June 5, 1979, the third respondent in his proceedings dated September 4, 1979 has issued executive instructions to all the subordinate authorities and schools to the effect that in respect of Aided Schools the seniority is to be determined, taking into account the service put in by the teacher in the present aided school only for the purpose of designation of Assistant Headmaster. In the light of the provisions in the Rules, I am of the view that the instructions referred to above issued by the Director of School Education, third respondent herein are perfectly in order. Further, even as per Rule 15(4) of the Rules, seniority may be considered only when merit and ability of two persons are equal. As per this rule, promotions could be given only on the basis of merit and ability. Further, even as per Rule 15(4) of the Rules, seniority may be considered only when merit and ability of two persons are equal. As per this rule, promotions could be given only on the basis of merit and ability. It is also explained in the counter affidavit that even considering his claims purely on the basis of seniority, that too, having taken his previous service put in another school would have no consideration as per the above rule, even if the 1st respondent is to be ordered to take his services so rendered in the previous school for considering to fix up his seniority, there is four days break in between the date of previous school and in the present one. So the actual incremental services of the petitioner in the resent school commences only from June 5, 1979.10. It is clear that there is no Government Order to extend the benefit of taking into account the entire period of service put in by the teacher under various aided schools for the purpose of seniority as stated by the petitioner. As mentioned earlier, under Explanation in sub-rule 3 of Rule 12 of the Rules, it is specified that for purpose of constitution of School Committee in Aided Schools, the seniority is to be determined with reference to the total service rendered by the teacher in any recognised school. This is a statutory provision made applicable only for the purpose of 'Constitution of School Committee" in Aided Schools. The said provision has not been made applicable to Aided School Teachers for determining their seniority for the purpose of promotion etc. as per Rule 15(4) of the Rules. In the absence of any specific provisions in the Rules, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 11. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed; accordingly dismissed. No costs.