Judgment : The petitioner is a private aided school represented by one R. Vijayakumar. The said Vijayakumar inherited the educational agency from his father late L. Ramasamy. After his demise the agency was transferred in the name of his mother and thereafter to his brother and subsequently in his favour with effect from 1.4.2004. There is no dispute about the ownership of the petitioner School and the said Vijayakumar is the sole member of the educational agency. 2. It so happened that the said Vijayakumar was the secretary and also a teacher in the same school. On account of the formation of a School Committee a proposal was sent to the department. The fact remains that the petitioner was owner of the school was recognised by the Department vide communication dated 8.5.2000 issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer. Subsequently when the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary of the school committee the same was also recognised for a period of three years from 15.9.2001 by proceedings issued by the first respondent. 3. Thereafter, when the term of three years came to an end a letter was sent once again seeking approval for the said petitioner to continue as the Secretary of the School Committee. Under Rule 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Act, 1974, the term of the office of the committee shall be three years and the Member of the committee shall be eligible for re-nomination. There is nothing wrong in the said Vijayakumar seeking continuance of the Secretaryship. It is also stated that it is for the Educational Agency to nominate one of the Member as Secretary of the School Committee as per rule 13(1) of the said Act. When the fresh proposal for his continuance was sent for approval by the petitioner on 18.10.2004, it was refused on the ground that a same person cannot have three roles namely the Educational Agency, Secondary Grade Teacher as well as the Secretary of the school. 4. A perusal of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act shows there is no disqualification for one person holding more than one post. In fact, by inheritance he came to be the owner of the school, as such there is no bar in such a person being the owner of the school. His appointment of teacher was also approved by the Department of School Education. 5. In fact, by inheritance he came to be the owner of the school, as such there is no bar in such a person being the owner of the school. His appointment of teacher was also approved by the Department of School Education. 5. By relying upon Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules where there is only a provision for the educational agency to nominate the Headmaster as the Secretary of the school and hence the said petitioner cannot be nominated as the Secretary of the school committee. In fact the provision enables the Head Master also to be nominated as a Secretary at the instance of an Educational Agency. But Rule 13(1) of the Rules clearly states that the Educational Agency "shall nominate one of the member of the committee as Secretary of the School Committee". The said person is also working as a teacher in same School is not relevant in deciding the issue. 6. Insofar as the petitioner being an educational agency there is no legal prohibition also to act as the Secretary of the School Committee. The respondents by impugned order dated 18.10.2004, unnecessarily indulging in futile exercise by stating that there is a legal prohibition for the said Vijaya Kumar from continuing the post of Secretary. In fact, when his tenure for the earlier period from 14.9.2001 to 13.9.2004 has been approved, there is no necessity to take a different stand when a fresh proposal was sent. Hence, the order of the first respondent dated 18.10.2004 is liable to be set aside: 7. Accordingly, the order of the first respondent dated 18.10.2004 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. (MD) No. 3104 of 2004 is closed. Writ petition allowed.