Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Correspondent of the School. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the impugned order issued by the first respondent. 3. The first respondent is the Inspector for Matriculation Schools. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent has d the petitioner school in the year 1994 as a computer assistant. She has made a permanent staff in August 1998 and she was given assignment teaching LKG classes. It is stated by the petitioner that in the year 2004, was a change in Diocesen Management and there was an inspection therein it was noticed that some irregular appointments have been made and all the staff members were asked to submit their credentials disclosing their qualifications. It is alleged that without furnishing the details, the second respondent, working with the petitioner filed a Writ on in W.P. No. 10161/2005 and the same was dismissed by this Court directing the second respondent to approach the first respondent for redressal the first respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The said order was passed by this Court on 15.11.2005. 5. Thereafter, the first respondent has conducted an enquiry on 19.12.2005 and passed the impugned order on 19.12.2005 directing the petitioner to receive certificate from the second respondent and she should be given suitable assignment as per her educational qualifications and she should be given 5 years' time to qualify herself. The first respondent has also given a direction to the petitioner to give all benefits presently enjoyed by the second respondent as she has been serving the institution for 11 years. 6. The petitioner is questioning the same on the ground that it is a minority institution and they are not receiving any aid and as such the first respondent cannot give any direction. 7. The first respondent and the second respondent filed a counter, denying all the material allegations. 8. The first respondent has clearly stated that as per the direction given this Court in W.P. No. 10161/2005, he conducted an enquiry and recorded the statements and issued the order in question. It is stated that the writ Petitioner is a recognised Matric Higher Secondary School and should fulfil all the conditions by which recognition is granted. 8. The first respondent has clearly stated that as per the direction given this Court in W.P. No. 10161/2005, he conducted an enquiry and recorded the statements and issued the order in question. It is stated that the writ Petitioner is a recognised Matric Higher Secondary School and should fulfil all the conditions by which recognition is granted. It is stated that the matric schools are not receiving any aid from the State and it is a policy of State. It is stated that she is having all requisite qualifications including teacher training and it is not in any way interfering with the administration of the school. 9. The second respondent has also filed a detailed counter wherein she has stated that she is appointed as LKG Teacher in 1994 and is working part time computer teacher from September, 1994 and in August 1998, her services were confirmed and she has become a permanent staff of the s and she was asked to take UKG Class and computer classes for 5th to 9th Standard and her present designation is Assistant Mistress. She has alleged that the present management started maltreatment and not permitted her to sign the attendance register and also physically stopped from entering school premises. Thereby, she was forced to issue legal notice and filed the Writ the petitioner is adamant. Writ direction is given to the first respondent consider her case. 10. The second respondent has also stated that the petitioner school recognised by the Director of Matriculation Schools and as per Matriculation Code, SSLC with nursery training is sufficient for appoint Teacher in LKG and that she passed SSLC and she had training for nursery in a recognised Teacher Training Institution and she has 11 years unblemished service with the petitioner and she earned computer knowledge and the services were utilised by the petitioner but the present manage with ulterior motives intend to oust her from services. Therefore, she has other option except to approach the Court of law. Point: 11. The admitted case is that the petitioner is a matriculation school as recognised by the Director of Matriculation Schools and the teachers and other staff must have qualification in accordance with the prescriptions made in Chapter VI of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, Tamil Nadu and proceedings R.C. No. 9943/E8/2002 dated 6.9.2002 of Director of Matriculation Schools. The admitted case is that the petitioner is a matriculation school as recognised by the Director of Matriculation Schools and the teachers and other staff must have qualification in accordance with the prescriptions made in Chapter VI of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, Tamil Nadu and proceedings R.C. No. 9943/E8/2002 dated 6.9.2002 of Director of Matriculation Schools. The Code also says if any teacher is not qualified the said teacher can be given a promotion to qualify within a period of 5 years as per para 4(111) of the G.O. (2D) No.48, School Edn. (X2) Dept. dated 21.7.2004 of the Tamil Nadu State Government. 12. The petitioner's school being recognized by the Government has to follow the above conditions. 13. It is also an admitted fact that the first respondent is the inspect authority as per the code and has got every power to verify the irregularities if any. The authority can inspect the day to day functioning of petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to question the authority of the first respondent. 14. Apart from that in the instant case, there is a judicial direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the second respondent and he has to respect the same. The petitioner cannot question the same as Writ direction is given by this Court to the first respondent. Further, the first respondent has considered the ease of the second respondent and issued the impugned order strictly in accordance with the direction of this case. 15. Apart from that the second respondent has been working with the petitioner since 11 years. In such circumstances, it is absurd to pay Rs.1,500 on a consolidated basis without granting increments, EPF subscriptions and all other benefits to the second respondent. The petitioner has to give all such benefits to the second respondent. It is not the sweet will of the management in payment of minimum salary to their teacher. The minimum pay for every employee is mandatory. It is not paid. Since all these irregularities are noticed by the first respondent in the enquiry, he has given a correct order. 16. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. The petitioner is directed to implement the impugned order forthwith. 18. It is not paid. Since all these irregularities are noticed by the first respondent in the enquiry, he has given a correct order. 16. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. The petitioner is directed to implement the impugned order forthwith. 18. Further, when the second respondent is contending that she has got all requisite qualifications, I do not understand the reasons for the petitioner to reject the same. Admittedly, the second respondent has put up 11 years of successful service with the petitioner. When there was no complaint from 1994 till 2005, it is absurd to say that her services are not required by the petitioner after 2005. 19. There should not be any politics in the educational institutions e. use the object of the institution is to impart education that is to provide knowledge0. He who intends to fulfil the object of educating others should acquire himself the minimum knowledge and education before trying to educate the others. The petitioner is to follow this basic rule and should not harass either the teacher or the student in any manner. 20. The first respondent is at liberty to inspect the affairs of the petitioner as and when there are complaint to him to rectify the same. 21. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000 by petitioner to 2nd respondent. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 1604 of 2006 is closed.