Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. A. Sivaji for the 5th respondent. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 16.5.2005 confirming the order passed by the second third respondents dated 23.11.2004 and 16.03.2004 respectively directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner P.G. Assistant in Tamil. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined as a Record Clerk in the fourth respondent school on 1.7.1969. The fourth respondent school is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools, (Regulation) Act the rules made therein. She subsequently acquired B.Lit, (Tamil) qualification in 1982, M.A. (Tamil) in 1985 and B.Ed, in 1987. When a vacancy arose in Grade I Tamil Pandit which according to the petitioner is now redesignated as a School Assistant (Tamil), she was posted. 4. While he was working in tile said post, a vacancy in the P.G. Assistant Tamil arose in the fourth respondent-School. The 4th respondent has promoted film as a P.G. Assistant on 2.6.2003. The fourth respondent has forwarded he papers regarding the appointment of the petitioner as a P.G. Assistant for approval to tile third respondent. The third respondent refused to approve the petitioner's appointment and returned the papers on 16.3.2004. That refusal was oil the ground that the post of P.G. Assistant must be filled up by promotion according to tile seniority and there is one Chandran who is senior to the petitioner is available. It was against the said rejection order of the third respondent, the fourth respondent management, has filed an Appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent has rejected the Appeal on 23.11.2004 confirming the order of the third respondent. It was against the said order of the second respondent dated 23.11.2004, the petitioner filed an Appeal to the first respondent on 2.12.2004. 5. The contention of the petitioner who has filed Appeal before the first respondent was that the said Chandran who has been impleaded as a fifth respondent in this Writ Petition is not having both basic degree and master degree in the same subject namely Tamil. 5. The contention of the petitioner who has filed Appeal before the first respondent was that the said Chandran who has been impleaded as a fifth respondent in this Writ Petition is not having both basic degree and master degree in the same subject namely Tamil. It was in those circumstances, the fourth respondent has appointed the petitioner since she was having Tamil qualification in basic and master degree and teaching classes in Tamil, while the fifth respondent is a science teacher and no way connected with the Tamil Department. That apart, as per the petitioner there is no provision for approval of appointment teacher when once the School Committee makes appointment by promotion. It is only tile qualifications which are forwarded to the educational authorities under Annexure-Ill to the Rules for the purpose of approval of qualification. 6. That apart, the appointment of petitioner as a P.G. Assistant in Tamil 16.3.2004 has not been objected to by anybody including the fifth respondent. Since the Appeal before the first respondent was not disposed of, the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.39415 of 2004 wherein a direction was given to the first respondent to consider the Appeal and pass orders. When the respondents 1 to 3 were pressuring the fourth respondent to revert the petitioner as School Assistant (Tamil). The petitioner filed in W.P.No.4266 of 2005 and this Court by an order dated 10.2.2005 while disposing the said Writ Petition has directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's Appeal dated 2.12.2004 within six weeks and also directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to insist for reversion of the petitioner. Now the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 16.5.2005 rejecting the Appeal stating that the persons who have both basic degree and master degree in the said subject could be preferred only if the merit and ability are approximately equal. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that against the order of the fourth respondent since the fifth respondent has not filed any Appeal or objected to the appointment of the petitioner as a P.G. Assistant in Tamil which post the petitioner has been holding even from 2.6.2003, the impugned order of the first respondent cannot be sustained. 8. 8. According to the learned Senior Counsel as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, Annexure III (III), the authority was expected only to verify the documents relating to the qualifications and there was no provision for approval at all. Therefore when once the School Committee which is the appointing authority and in fact, the School Committee has appointed the petitioner as P.G. Assistant in Tamil with effect from 2.6.2003 it was not open to the respondents 1 to 3 to decide about the merit and ability. 9. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, the term that the promotion shall be made on the ground of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal it is for the appointing authority to consider and not for the respondents 1 to 3. 10. Inasmuch as the fourth respondent being the appointing authority through its School Committee has appointed the petitioner as P.G. Assistant in Tamil, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot sit over the decision of the fourth respondent to set aside the same, unless the educational authority finds that there is no qualification on the part of the petitioner for the said post. Inasmuch as the petitioner has got Post Graduate in Tamil apart from B.Lit., she is most suitable for the post of Tamil teacher than the fifth respondent who has got qualification in Science. 11. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that the fifth respondent has objected to the appointment of the petitioner even from 14.6.2003. His further contention is that the Appeal filed by the petitioner to the first respondent itself is not maintainable. The reason according to the learned counsel is that it was only proposal to the fourth respondent which was returned by the third respondent. It was against the order of the third respondent 4th respondent has filed Appeal before the second respondent who also rejected the proposals on 23.11.2004 in such circumstances, the first respondent ought not have taken the Appeal of the petitioner into file at all, especially, when the fourth respondent being the appointing authority has not filed any Appeal. It was against the order of the third respondent 4th respondent has filed Appeal before the second respondent who also rejected the proposals on 23.11.2004 in such circumstances, the first respondent ought not have taken the Appeal of the petitioner into file at all, especially, when the fourth respondent being the appointing authority has not filed any Appeal. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that the fifth respondent is seven years senior to the petitioner and therefore, according to the terms of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules based on the seniority, the fifth respondent should have been appointed as correctly found in the impugned order of the first respondent. 12. The counter has been filed on behalf of the third respondent also. The third respondent would submit that the petitioner being the Junior was considered for promotion by the management and therefore, it was not accepted. According to the third respondent, the District Educational Officer is competent to approve the appointment and promotion according to the Rules and Regulations framed by the Government and the Director is the Appellate Authority. Since the fifth respondent being a senior admittedly overlooked, the appointment of the petitioner as a P.G. Assistant (Tamil) was not approved. It is well within the powers of the respondents 1 to 3 and according to the third respondent, the impugned order passed is perfectly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 13. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsels for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned order of the first respondent would show that the first respondent has taken a stand that the second and third respondents have relied upon the Annexure V(IV)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 to show that when other things being equal, the preference shall be given to the seniority and while the fifth respondent is the senior it was not proper for the fourth respondent to have promoted the petitioner as the P.G. Assistant in Tamil. 14. The impugned order further shows that the first respondent has considered the merit and ability of the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent. 14. The impugned order further shows that the first respondent has considered the merit and ability of the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent. The first respondent having found that the petitioner has studied the graduate and Post graduate in Tamil as a major subject and also having found that as per Rule 15(3) of the Rules of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules B.A. and M.A. in Tamil are one and the same has categorically come to the conclusion that the petitioner is qualified. But at the same time, the first respondent in the impugned order while assessing the ability of the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent has come to the conclusion that in respect of teaching ability and the merit both the petitioner and the fifth respondent are one and the same. But at the same time, in the impugned order itself the first respondent has stated that while the petitioner has produced 100% results for the years namely 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, the fifth respondent has produced 98%, 100% and 98% respectively in those years. Having assessed like that the first respondent has come to the conclusion that in merit and ability both the petitioner and the fifth respondent are one and the same. 15. In any event, I am of the considered view that it is for the management to decide about the merit and ability and not for the respondents 1 to 3, as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. It is the School Committee which is the appointing authority and also makes promotion which alone can decide about the merit and ability of the candidates. When once it is admitted even by the Ist respondent himself in the impugned order that both the petitioner and the fifth respondent having merit and ability, it was only for the fourth respondent who was being appointing authority and promoting authority to decide about the relative merit and ability. When once the fourth respondent has admittedly decided to appoint and promote the petitioner as P.G. Assistant in Tamil, in my considered view, it is not appropriate for the first respondent to make a relative assessment of merit and ability. When once the fourth respondent has admittedly decided to appoint and promote the petitioner as P.G. Assistant in Tamil, in my considered view, it is not appropriate for the first respondent to make a relative assessment of merit and ability. As correctly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner it is under the Annexure III (III) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, the authority has got a right while releasing the grant to verify and satisfy as to whether the appointments are made by the schools under rules in force. 16. While admittedly, it is the case of the respondents 1 to 3 that the appointment of the petitioner was not made against the rules, it is not for the respondents 1 to 3 to interfere with the affairs of the fourth respondent especially to state that to assess the merit and ability of the petitioner and the fifth respondent. The curious aspect in this case is that even in the assessment in the impugned order between the petitioner and the fifth respondent apparently, the petitioner stands better than the fifth respondent even on merit and ability. 17. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is opposed to the principles of the Private Schools (Regulation). Act and Rules made therein and therefore, the same is set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed.