Judgment :- Writ Petition No.19845 of 1998 has been filed by the individual teacher praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his O.Mu.No.3164/A4/98 dated 18.11.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 to 4 therein to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher w.e.f. 4.3.1998 made by the 5th respondent School and grant all necessary grant for the same. Writ Petition No.20701 of 1998 has been filed by the School praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his O.Mu.No.3164/A4/98 dated 18.11.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve the appointments made in the sanctioned posts of teachers to the petitioner School and to pay the teaching grant for the same. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, W.P.No. 19845 of 1998 is hereinafter referred to as the first Writ Petition and W.P.No. 20701 of 1998 is hereinafter be referred to as the second Writ Petition. 2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the individual teacher and the management/School respectively, for one and the same relief of quashing the order passed by the third respondent in his O.Mu.No.3164/A4/98 dated 18.11.1998 wherein it is stated that the Management/School is not entitled to more than 13 posts of teachers thereby rejecting the appointment of the petitioner/individual. Hence these writ petitions by the individual teacher and the Management itself. 3. Hence these writ petitions by the individual teacher and the Management itself. 3. So far as the first Writ Petition is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner/individual is that she was appointed in the 5th respondent School on 4.3.1998; that according to the petitioner, the School is entitled to have 16 Secondary Grade Teachers and all the posts are approved and sanctioned by the authorities concerned and the necessary Grant-in-Aid has also been granted to the teachers as per the relevant Act from 1989 onwards; while on 31.5.1996, one post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant in view of the retirement on superannuation of one K.S.Saraswathi and hence the School, after obtaining the permission from the third respondent by proceedings dated 22.7.1996, wherein the 5th respondent School was granted permission to fill up the said vacancy as per Section 15(4)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act and Rules; that the petitioner was selected through the Employment Exchange and was appointed in the 5th respondent School on 4.3.1998 and thereafter, the same was sent to the 4th respondent for necessary approval, which was forwarded to the third respondent, who returned the same to the School for certain compliance which are minor in nature and thereafter, the same was re-submitted after compliance; that in view of the non-approval, the petitioner has not been paid the salary from March, 1998; While so, the impugned order dated 18.11.1998 was passed by the third respondent stating that the Management/School is not entitled to more than 13 posts of teachers thereby rejecting the appointment of the petitioner/individual. 4. 4. So far as second Writ Petition is concerned, the petitioner/School would challenge the impugned order on the grounds that the authority concerned has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement before passing the impugned order by inspecting the petitioner School and based on the earlier inspection report made by the then District Elementary Educational Officer (in charge) and without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner will clearly establish the malafide intention on the part of the third respondent; that the authorities while passing the impugned order, after receiving the explanation submitted by the petitioner, ought to have given opportunity and since no opportunity was given to the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be quashed; that the respondent who suffered an order in the earlier proceedings before this Court followed by a contempt proceeding, where the authorities were directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/= and the said order was passed during the relevant period, the said appointment made by the petitioner and taking vengeance of the aforesaid contempt proceedings, the impugned order was passed; that the DEEO (In charge) is not the competent person to inspect the petitioner School and hence the impugned order passed by him is arbitrary; that the inspection report dated 1.12.1997 clearly admits that the petitioner School is entitled to 15 teacher posts and 12 teachers are working as on date and further the second inspection made on 8.12.1997 and that inspection report did not speak about the eligibility of teacher posts and strangely, the impugned order states that as on inspection made on 8.12.1997, the petitioner School is entitled for only 13 teacher posts, which is contradictory to the inspection report and the impugned order clearly prove the predetermined and vindictive action on the part of the respondents, based on the earlier proceedings against the respondent. 5. 5. The further submission of the petitioner School is that even on the date of inspection made by the then DEEO (In charge) only 12 teachers were working in the petitioner School and the said appointment is made only on the vacancy which arose due to the retirement of 13th teacher and even assuming as per the impugned order, the petitioner School is eligible for 13 teachers, the rejection of the appointment made by the petitioner is without application of mind and that shows that the impugned order has no basis to reject the claim of the petitioner; that the various visits made by the respondents 3 and 4 will clearly establish that the petitioner School is entitled for 16 posts of teaching staff, which was duly sanctioned by the authorities concerned and even after the inspection made by the then DEEO (In charge) on 1.12.1997 and on 8.12.1997 and the subsequent inspections clearly establish that the petitioner School is entitled for 16 posts of teaching staff; that after the appointment was made on 4.3.1998, two more vacancies arose in the petitioner school for which the respondents have granted permission for filling up the said vacancies and the said appointments have been sent for approval of the respondents, wherein the same are pending. On such grounds, the petitioner School would seek to quash the impugned order. 6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would only reiterate those averments which have been extracted supra from the pleadings in both the above Writ Petitions, without any new facts or circumstances or law being brought-forth. 7. On such grounds, the petitioner School would seek to quash the impugned order. 6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would only reiterate those averments which have been extracted supra from the pleadings in both the above Writ Petitions, without any new facts or circumstances or law being brought-forth. 7. On the contrary on the part of the learned Government Advocate representing on behalf of the respondents would submit that it is false that no inspections were conducted in the school after the proposal for the approval of appointment of the individual petitioner that the proposal was received through the Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kumbakonam which was not in a complete form but, certain omissions and insufficient informations, without the necessary and the required particulars for considering the approval of the appointment were seen; that the AAEEO, Kumbakonam, submitted the required particulars stating that during his surprise visits, it was found that the School was eligible only for 13 posts as against the sanctioned strength of 16 as per G.O.No. 525; that on his surprise visit dated 1-12-1997, he was able to find the roll was 560 and the attendance was marked for 528 students, whereas, on head count there were only 420 students present. Likewise, on his surprise visit dated 8-12-1997, the roll was 557 and the attendance was marked for 515 students, whereas, on head count the number available was 383; that to appoint fresh teachers and to get the aid from the Government, such imaginary and false entries have been effected deliberately by the petitioner in the second Writ Petition above; that they issued a notice to the Management as to, 'why the appointment of the petitioner in the first Writ Petition should not be rejected' and since, the explanation submitted by the Management was not acceptable, rejecting the plea of the petitioner in the first Writ Petition and that of the Institution/the petitioner in the second Writ Petition, the impugned order was passed. On such grounds, the learned Government Advocate on the Writ Side would pray to dismiss both the above Writ Petitions. 8. On such grounds, the learned Government Advocate on the Writ Side would pray to dismiss both the above Writ Petitions. 8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate contra what comes to be assessed is that the petitioner in the second Writ Petition above was in the habit of indulging in mal-practices, manipulation and falsification of records in order to show that it was necessary to appoint fresh teachers and to get aid from the Government effecting false entries into the attendance register and on two surprise inspections, the Authorities were able to detect that though only 420 and 383 students were attending to the classes respectively on 1-12-1997 and 8-12-1997, the attendance was marked for 528 and 515 students to have attended and the roll had also been boosted up so as to show 560 and 557 for the purpose of record, though not the same are true to the facts and since, the attendance of pupils shown in the attendance register of the school could not be relied on and only on the number of pupils present at the time of visit of the District Elementary Educational Officer could be taken as the basis for the purpose of deciding the number of teacher post allotted to the School, accordingly the number of eligibility of teacher post for the School on the basis of the attendance of the pupils was fixed at 13 and since, the petitioner in the first Writ Petition above was the 14th teacher appointed against the retirement vacancy on 4-12-1998 was not eligible for appointment in the school and besides herself not deserving for the Government grant, the School also became ineligible for employment of the 14th teacher and therefore,, the claim of both the individual petitioner and the Institution were rejected in the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 18-11-1998. 9. 9. Whether, it pertains to refusal for the approval of the petitioner as the secondary grade teacher as prayed for in the first Writ Petition above or regarding the prayer of the second Writ Petitioner School for the approval of the appointments made in the posts of teachers, this Court is not able to find any illegality or inconsistency or legal infirmity committed on the part of the third respondent in the passing of the order impugned therein and therefore, the interference of this Court sought to be made on the part of the petitioners in both the above Writ Petitions is neither necessary nor called for in the circumstances of the case and hence, the following order. In result, (i) both the above Writ Petitions do not merit acceptance and become liable only to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly; (ii) consequently, the connected W.M.P.No. 22018 of 1999 in W.P.No. 20701 of 1998 is also dismissed.