Judgment :- E. Padmanabhan, J. W.P. No. 12148 of 2000 is filed by C. Kanagam a Tamil Pandit-cum-Head Mistress in the 3rd respondent-school, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents in any way interfering in her discharging the duties of Head Mistress of the third respondent-school direct the respondents to grant all payments, salary including arrears of salary from 1.4.2000 and other benefits and pass such further or other orders. W.P. No. 12149 of 2000 is filed by C. Rajeswari another teacher employed in the 3rd respondent-school, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from in any way interfering with her discharging the duties of a teacher of the 3rd respondent-school by the petitioner direct the respondent to grant all payments, salary including arrears of salary with effect from 1.4.2000 and other benefits and issue such further or other orders of direction which this Court deems fit. Heard Mr. K. V. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr. K. Sundarraj for Mr. M. S. Jawaharlal, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Mr. Subramanian learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. With the consent of the counsel on either side the writ petitions are taken up and the respective counsel submitted their arguments in the main writ petitions. As the contentions are identical, both the writ petitions were taken up together. Excepting there is a difference as to the name, cadre or salary there is no other difference. Hence, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions namely, W.P. No. 12148 of 2000. The petitioner is holding the post of Tamil Pandit-cum-Head Mistress in the 3rd respondent-school with effect from 20.6.1985. The petitioner claims that she had been discharging the duties with utmost devotion and had earned the reputation. But this is being disputed the contesting respondent. Further it is not necessary to go into the said aspect of the matter in this writ petition at this juncture. The petitioner alleges that with ulterior motives for accommodating one of the family members of the correspondent of the 3rd respondent-school, the 3rd respondent had been subjecting the petitioner to innumberable difficulties with respect to the administration of the school, in respect of academic matters and day-to-day administration as well. The petitioner alleges that with ulterior motives for accommodating one of the family members of the correspondent of the 3rd respondent-school, the 3rd respondent had been subjecting the petitioner to innumberable difficulties with respect to the administration of the school, in respect of academic matters and day-to-day administration as well. The correspondent took away the attendance register and used to get the signature to the teachers at his wish. It is alleged that the correspondent used abusive language against the petitioner in W.P. No. 12149 of 2000 using unwanted expressions besides such expression relating to the community. There was a complaint before the criminal Court under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The two petitioners were examined as witnesses. However, the 3rd respondent was acquitted by the Criminal Court.It is alleged that on 27.4.2000 when the petitioner went to the school they were physically prevented from entering the school. The school was closed for summer vacation commencing from 1.5.2000 and even after the reopening, the 3rd respondent prevented the petitioners from entering into the school and disabled them from continuing as Head Mistress and Teacher in the said 3rd respondent-school. The 3rd respondent also issued certain proceedings to the effect that one or other of the teacher is incharge of the school as Head Master, when the petitioner in the writ petition is holding the post of Head Mistress on a permanent basis. On 25.5.2000 the petitioner received a letter by certificate of posting written by the 3rd respondent addressed to the first respondent with a copy marked, wherein it has been set out that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were dismissed with effect from 27.4.2000 and one Mr. Elango was appointed as the Head Master in-charge with effect from 27.4.2000. By the said representation, the 3rd respondent requested the Director of Elementary Education to accord approval for removal of the two teachers and also record approval for Master-in-charge. Till then, both the petitioners were kept in dark and all their attempt to enter the school to attend to their routine duties were prevented by the 3rd respondent and his men. By the said representation, the 3rd respondent requested the Director of Elementary Education to accord approval for removal of the two teachers and also record approval for Master-in-charge. Till then, both the petitioners were kept in dark and all their attempt to enter the school to attend to their routine duties were prevented by the 3rd respondent and his men. According to the petitioner in terms of Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Act, no teacher shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority, and a teacher, if at all could be terminated, only after following the procedure prescribed in the said Act and the Rules made therein. It is accepted by the petitioner in both the writ petitions that no termination notice or removal notice, or show cause notice whatever had been served on them, yet they have been illegally terminated and besides no salary had been paid. A representation submitted by the 3rd respondent to the first respondent is of no value as it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act and the Rules framed therein.The petitioner's state that the 3rd respondent is a 100% aided non-minority school and therefore it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the teachers are entitled to continue in the school till their services are terminated with the prior approval. The service of the teacher cannot be terminated except as provided under Section 22 of the Act and not otherwise. The 3rd respondent had not initiated any action and had not passed any order of termination or removal or dismissal nor such an order had been communicated. The petitioners have been denied of their right of employment and they have been forcibly excluded from working as teachers in the 3rd respondent-school thereby all the respondents had violated Art. 14 as well as Art. 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have been denied of their right of employment and they have been forcibly excluded from working as teachers in the 3rd respondent-school thereby all the respondents had violated Art. 14 as well as Art. 19(1) of the Constitution of India. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no disciplinary action had been initiated and no procedure at all had been followed before preventing the petitioner in each of the writ petition from entering and discharging her duty nor even a show cause notice nor an enquiry had been conducted till this date. The petitioner submitted their representation on 20.5.2000 and till date no action has been taken. The petitioners also moved for interim direction and this Court granted interim direction as the 3rd respondent had failed to appear directing the 3rd respondent to disburse the salary for the period of 3 months within two weeks from 30.10.2000. It is admitted that the said direction had not been complied with so far. However, the 3rd respondent had taken out an application to vacate the said direction. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that no orders have been passed nor there is any basis for the petitioner in both the writ petitions being kept out of office and they have not accorded either any approval or permission for termination to the petitioner or any other orders have been passed in respect of them. It is also represented that till date, the respondents 1 and 2, have not passed any orders either transferring the petitioner with the posts to any other school or accepting the surrender of the two posts by the 3rd respondent; as according to the said respondent the 3rd respondent had proceeded on his own without reference to the statutory provisions of any of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act and Rules.The 3rd respondent filed a common counter in both the writ petitions. According to the 3rd respondent, it is his contention that the writ petition is not maintainable. That the petitioner had come forward with false allegations and termed them to be false. It is false to state that the petitioners were discharging their duties with utmost sincerity. It is alleged that the petitioner had joined with the petitioner in the other writ petition and entered into a controversy. That the petitioner had come forward with false allegations and termed them to be false. It is false to state that the petitioners were discharging their duties with utmost sincerity. It is alleged that the petitioner had joined with the petitioner in the other writ petition and entered into a controversy. It is stated that the petitioner had come forward with false allegations. It is stated that M. Rajeswari, the petitioner in the other writ petition had made a false complaint against the 3rd respondent taking advantage of her being a member of scheduled caste and a criminal prosecution was launched, but after elaborate trial it ended in favour of the 3rd respondent. The two petitioner's were witnesses before the Sessions Court on legal submissions, the criminal case C.C. No. 72 of 1988 was dismissed. It is false to state that the petitioner in each of the writ petition was physically prevented from entering into the school and it is highly defamatory to allege that the 3rd respondent had created false records. According to the 3rd respondent even during the year 1999 the school had written letters to the authorities complaining about the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner in each of the writ petitions and the writ petitioners have joined together to bring disrepute to the institution with ulterior motive. It is the specific case of the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent had surrendered the post in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 525 (Education), dated Nil in the ratio of 1:4 teacher and pupil had been fixed and therefore, the petitioner cannot make complaint against the school for surrendering the post. The petitioners cannot plead that they have been terminated illegally much less under S. 22 of the Act. The petitioner can invoke S. 22 only if disciplinary action is taken against her.It is the specific case of the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent had surrendered the post held by the petitioner in both the writ petitions and therefore, S. 22 will have no application if it is to be considered that the action falls under S. 22 then the writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarily as the petitioner has approached the Court without exhausting the remedy. The petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Looking from any angle, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Looking from any angle, the writ petition is not maintainable. Surrendering of post cannot be questioned by any member of the staff nor it could be the subject matter of judicial scrutiny. It is further pleaded that Elango is continuing as the Head Master in-charge. The contentions are devoid of merits. It is unnecessary to pass an order of termination against the petitioner as the post held by the petitioner in the two writ petitions have been surrendered. The respondent had not followed S. 22 of the Private Schools (Regulation) Act or the Rules framed therein. It is further pointed out that the petitioner can always move the concerned authorities to grant placement in any other aided school and respondents 1 and 2 have ample jurisdiction to entertain the application from the petitioner to secure a place of posting in other aided school. The respondent pleaded that the petitions be dismissed. The points that arise in these two writ petitions are : "(1) Whether the petitioners in each of the writ petition had been otherwise terminated in violation of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed therein ? (2) Whether the claim of the 3rd respondent that it had validly surrendered the post held by the petitioners to the respondents 1 and 2 ? (3) Whether on fact surrender of post is permissible in law ?(4) To what relief the petitioners are entitled to ?" Before considering the above points it is essential to refer to the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed therein. Chapter V of the Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, provides the terms and conditions of service of teachers employed in private schools. S. 19 enables the State Government to frame rules regulating conditions of service of the teachers. Sec. 21 provides that teachers are governed by code of conduct and if the teacher violates any provision of such code of conduct he shall be liable to such disciplinary case as may be prescribed. S. 22 is the fulcrum which provides that no teacher employed in any private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in his rank nor shall his appointment be terminated except with prior approval of the competent authority. Sub-sec. S. 22 is the fulcrum which provides that no teacher employed in any private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in his rank nor shall his appointment be terminated except with prior approval of the competent authority. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 22 relates to suspension of a teacher. S. 23 provides for appeal against orders of punishment imposed on a teacher. Sec. 24 provides for Second Appeal, S. 26 provides for absorption of teachers or other persons on retrenchment where on retrenchment of any teacher or any other person employed in other private school is rendered necessary consequent on any order of the Government relating to education or course of instruction or to any other matter or consequent on the reduction in strength of the pupils studying in any such private school it shall be competent for the Government or the school committee of any private school to appoint such teacher or other person in any school or institution maintained by the Government or any such private school as the case may be. In exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 56 of the Act, Rules were framed under Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the rules); Rule 17 provides for dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of a teacher and others. Rule 17-A prescribes that the educational agency shall not obtain compulsory resignation letter either at the time of appointment or subsequently.On consideration of the said statutory provisions of the Act and the statutory rules, it is obviously clear that a permanent incumbent of the post of a teacher employed in a Recognised Private school could be terminated by following the procedure prescribed under S. 22 read with Rule 17 and such termination could be with the prior approval of the competent authority. It is also the provision and it is also the settled position that the disciplinary authority has to follow the procedure prescribed before terminating the service of a teacher under Sec. 22 such as framing of charges, affording an opportunity, conducting an enquiry, communication of the findings and thereafter to secure prior approval and only thereafter an order of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank could be imposed. It is also mandatory provision that no teacher shall otherwise be terminated which would include any other kind of termination other than dismissal or removal or reduction in rank. It is also mandatory provision that no teacher shall otherwise be terminated which would include any other kind of termination other than dismissal or removal or reduction in rank. The expression otherwise terminated appearing under Sub-sec. (1) of S. 22 as well as Sub-sec. (2) to S. 22 would mean that whatever nature of order or proceeding by which a teacher is thrown out of employment or deprived of employment or deprived of his usual benefits or emoluments or other service conditions which are normally attached to the said post of teacher. In the present case even according to the counter no order of dismissal, removal or termination had been admittedly passed nor any proceedings had been initiated so far by the 3rd respondent nor any prior approval had been applied for or granted in terms of Sec. 22 of the Act. Yet the claim of the petitioner that they were prevented from entering the school, prevented from handling the classes and as a result of which they are being denied of their usual emoluments; on the facts of the case this would fall under the category of otherwise terminated. But it is admitted by the 3rd respondent that no order of termination or otherwise termination had been either thought of or passed or communicated nor prior approval had been sought for. Therefore, no question of preferring an appeal would rise. The 3rd respondent's action in turning the petitioners out of the school is highly illegal per se arbitrary, whimsical, uncalled for and without any basis.Therefore in the circumstances, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is not well founded in contending that the petitioner has to prefer an appeal even though admittedly till date no communication or order or proceeding had been sent by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner in both the writ petitions to hold that they have been otherwise terminated. S. 26 of the Act provides for absorption of teacher or other persons on retrenchment. S. 26 of the Act provides for absorption of teacher or other persons on retrenchment. In terms of this Section where retrenchment of any teacher so employed in any private school is rendered necessary consequent to any order of the Government relating to education or course of instruction or to any other matter or consequent to reduction in strength of the pupil studying in any such private school, it shall be competent for the Government or the school committee of any private school to appoint such teacher or other person in any school or institution maintained by the Government or any such private school as the case may be. In this respect, transfer of the person shall be determined in accordance with the norms fixed in the particular Act of the Tamil Nadu Education Department. Therefore, in case of fall in strength or when a teacher is rendered surplus and which teacher has to be retrenched could be absorbed by the Government in any other school or by the school committee of any other private school or institution maintained by the Government. On the facts as well as on the admission of the 3rd respondent it is clear that there is no fall in strength in the 3rd respondent-school and, therefore, neither retrenchment nor a teacher being rendered surplus would arise. Further the petitioner in one of the writ petitions is the Head Mistress of the school which is not only a solitary post but also a permanent post in any institution and therefore, it is too purile and extraordinary for the 3rd respondent to contend that such a post had been rendered surplus or that the incumbent has to be absorbed in any other private school.It is vehemently contended and also disclosed in the counter affidavit that the 3rd respondent had sent a proposal for absorption of both the petitioners in some other private school on the sole reasoning as one of the teacher was the cause for the criminal case and both of them were examined as witnesses against the correspondent. Further it is not as if there had been a fall in strength which necessitated retrenchment or reduction in staff strength as a result, of the fall in strength of the pupil studying in the 3rd respondent-school. Further it is not as if there had been a fall in strength which necessitated retrenchment or reduction in staff strength as a result, of the fall in strength of the pupil studying in the 3rd respondent-school. Hence, it is obvious that the 3rd respondent has thrown out the petitioners in both the writ petitions and denied them employment even though they have not been rendered surplus nor they could be redeployed in any other school nor the 3rd respondent could compel the respondents 1 and 2 to redeploy them in any other aided school with the post on his own in total disregard of S. 26 and when conditions prescribed by the said Section are absent. It is needless to point out, if the petitioners in the two writ petitions have committed any misconduct, it is well open to the 3rd respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and follow the procedure and thereafter impose any one of the punishment after securing the prior approval prescribed under S. 22 read with Rule 17 of the Rules. This is not the case here in the guise of retrenchment or alleged surplus which claim is factually incorrect and non-existent the 3rd respondent had denied employment and had denied the petitioners the salary since 1.4.2000. This action of the 3rd respondent is not only arbitrary, but also violative of the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed therein, besides it is arbitrary. The 3rd respondent is an educational agency of a recognised private school against which the writ petitions is maintainable. The 3rd respondent receives 100% grant and therefore, it is not open to the 3rd respondent to contend that the writ petitions are not maintainable.The alleged surrender of post is neither legal nor warranted and the action of the 3rd respondent is oblique and the 3rd respondent had otherwise denied the employment, livelihood and the post which the petitioners are entitled to hold till, they reach the age of superannuation or till their service is terminated in terms of the procedure established or prescribed under the Act. In the guise of other retrenchment or redeployment which is imaginary the 3rd respondent cannot be permitted to deny employment of the writ petitioner and/or the petitioners service conditions could be changed or altered or interfered by the 3rd respondent-school. In the guise of other retrenchment or redeployment which is imaginary the 3rd respondent cannot be permitted to deny employment of the writ petitioner and/or the petitioners service conditions could be changed or altered or interfered by the 3rd respondent-school. So long as the relationship of the employer and employee continues, and till it is terminated in a manner known to law, or as provided in the Act, the 3rd respondent, who is the employer is liable to pay the salary as the writ petitioner is deemed to be in service and consequently all the benefits accrue to the writ petitioners. The Course adopted by the 3rd respondent is nothing but a collateral and resorted to with oblique motive to deny permanent employment and benefits attached to the post to the petitioners. In Jesudasan v. The Correspondent Lakshmi Mills High School, 1989 Writ L.R. 141, a Division Bench of this Court held thus : "When the statute says that a particular act has to conform to a particular prescription method other than the one prescribed if adopted will have no sanction in law. Any other view to be taken will be only tending to render the statutory prescriptions nugatory and meaningless. Courts should not tend to that result. This is sufficient for the headmaster to have the letters of resignation ignored. The fact that he was the author of the letters of resignation and he did resign voluntarily will not alter the legal position. At the relevant point of time, condition 9 alone, on the aspect of resignation, remained in the Statute Book. Though it apparently looks as if it is intended to benefit only the private schools, when it speaks about the teacher giving notice for prescribed periods or making payments in lieu of such notice it is not apparently and inherently so. This condition has got to be viewed as the only meager safeguard for the teacher against the capricious and arbitrary conduct on the part of the private school, in cutting off the services of the teacher and throwing him out of employment overnight; unceremoniously, by obtaining letters of resignation adopting unorthodox and unconscionable means. If the teacher could go out of service of his own volition only as per condition 9 that must be viewed atleast as a slender safeguard against resignation taking place by force or coercion or undue influence. If the teacher could go out of service of his own volition only as per condition 9 that must be viewed atleast as a slender safeguard against resignation taking place by force or coercion or undue influence. It is not normally expected of a teacher, to shell out money out of his pocket, if he has no definite intention of his own to go out of employment forthwith for better prospects or on account of other conveniences of his own. Condition 9 alone was envisaged and adumbrated in the statute book earlier. We have to view it as beneficial both to the teacher and the private school. Otherwise we will be doing violence to the very intendment behind the provision. Better and clear cut provisions got incorporated into the rules later on 2.4.1981 by the introduction of Rule 17-A which has specifically dealt with educational agencies obtaining compulsory resignation letters either at the time of appointment or subsequently from the employees. We are not prepared to be little from any angle the prescription found in condition 9 on the question of the teacher going out of employment of his own volition. The private school cannot and in fact is not pleading ignorance of law. If the teacher had not conformed to the statutory prescription the private school ought to have ignored the letters of resignation and insisted for satisfying the statutory prescription. If it had not done so it has to and in fact it has run the risk and must face the wrath, consequent upon breach of law". In David v. The Correspondent, St. Gabriels Higher Secondary School, 1995 (2) MLJ 219, R. Jayasimha Babu, J., held that a writ petition can very well be maintained against the private educational institution like the respondent as the institution is receiving 100% grant from the Government, and therefore the teacher of the institution are entitled to protection under the provisions of the Act. This Court respectfully agrees with the said view of the learned Judge. In the circumstances, the points framed in both the writ petitions are answered against the 3rd respondent and in favour of the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions. This Court respectfully agrees with the said view of the learned Judge. In the circumstances, the points framed in both the writ petitions are answered against the 3rd respondent and in favour of the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions are allowed and the 3rd respondent who had acted high handedly is directed to pay the full salary for the period commencing from 1.4.2000 and continue to pay full salary with all benefits every month till the services of the writ petitioner in each of the writ petition is terminated in terms of Section 22 or Rule 17 or the petitioners are redeployed or transferred with the post along with the teacher to any other aided school. On the admitted facts also the 3rd respondent cannot compel the respondents 1 and 2 to redeploy or transfer the petitioner with post to any other school as such a contingency and factors or conditions prescribed under Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools are totally absent. Further so long as the school functions, the post of Head Master is indispensable and the incumbent of the said post cannot be transferred with the post. While the allowing the writ petitions this Court points out that respondents 1 and 2 of the State Government cannot be made liable for the salary payable to the petitioner in these writ petitions and it is only the 3rd respondent who is liable. The 3rd respondent had acted not only illegally but also high handedly and with oblique motives. Even if the 3rd respondent has some grievance against the petitioners for their complaint unless it is brought under one or more of the misconduct and action is taken as per statutory provisions of the Act he cannot deny employment of the two permanent teachers. The plea of no work no pay put forward by the 3rd respondent on the facts of the case is untenable as it is the 3rd respondent who had denied the employment illegally. The plea of no work no pay put forward by the 3rd respondent on the facts of the case is untenable as it is the 3rd respondent who had denied the employment illegally. The petitioners who have been denied their rights illegally are deemed to be holding the post and discharged or discharging the functions right through as they are not at fault and they are entitled to all the benefits.While allowing the writ petitions the 3rd respondent is directed to pay all the arrears commencing from 1.4.2000 within six weeks from today and continue to pay the salary and other benefits to the writ petitioners till their services are validly terminated according to law. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the arrears within six weeks and continue to pay the monthly salary for the future on the date on which salary is being paid to other teachers and report the same to the second respondent. In the event of the 3rd respondent failing to comply with the direction, the respondent shall stop the disbursement of all grants to the entire school and also report the same to the competent authority under the Act for further action against the 3rd respondent-school and also take action not only for direct payment but also direct administration. The writ petitions are allowed with costs of Rs. 3, 000/- each in the above terms. After delivery of the order it is now represented that in respect of C. Rajeswari order of transfer had been passed. If that be so, the same would come into effect only from the date of the said order. To that extent, there will be a modification in respect of the petitioner in W.P. No. 12149 of 2000 in respect of future salary alone.