Judgment : Per S. MANIKUMAR, J. 1. The correctness of the order made in W.P. No. 4547 of 2007, dated 18.7.2007 is challenged by the Correspondent of a Private School in this appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows: The petitioner is a private aided school. The second respondent with B.A., B.Ed qualification was appointed in the said school as Secondary Grade Teacher. When the proposal for approval of appointment was sent by the Secretary and Correspondent of the School, it was rejected by the first respondent on 6.9.2002. The second respondent, teacher challenged the said order in W.P. No. 18122 of 2000. Following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Secretary and Correspondent, Uswathun Hasana Oriental ( Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai Girls Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai Girls Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai -9 and 5 Others 2002 Writ. LR. 173, this Court, by order dated 9.8.2002, held that as the second respondent was appointed before 19.5.1998 (7.1.1998), he was entitled to get training in Child physiology for one month from D.I.E.T. Instead of sending the second respondent for training, the District Elementary Officer. Madurai, by his proceedings dated 21.9.1992, has rejected the approval on the grounds that the appointment was made contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 559, dated 10.7.1995, that only lady teachers can be appointed for Standards 1 to 5 and that the second respondents name was not sponsored through employment exchange. The rejection of approval was again challenged in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003, In which, the Secretary, Adi Dravidar Middle School, Bodinaickenpatti, Vadipatti,Madurai District was the sixth respondent. After considering the relevant Government Orders applicable to the appointment of Secondary Grade teachers, this Court, by order dated 13.4.2006, set aside the rejection of approval and directed the first respondent to approve the appointment. 3. After considering the relevant Government Orders applicable to the appointment of Secondary Grade teachers, this Court, by order dated 13.4.2006, set aside the rejection of approval and directed the first respondent to approve the appointment. 3. Pursuant to the order made in the above writ petition, the District Educational Officer (Primary) Madurai, in his proceedings in R.O.C. No. 33694, dated 16.5.2006, issued orders approving the appointment of the second respondent as Secondary Grade Teacher in the appellant-school, subject to the following conditions, “(1) His appointment must satisfy the teacher pupil ratio as per G.O. Ms. No. 525. (2) At the time of appointment, when the strength of students are less than the required strength, he shall be transferred to other evaded school which may need. (3) After the additional teacher completion of the child Psychology training only pay shall be paid. (4) As per Paragraph 11 of the order the period from 7.1.1998 to 2.2.2003 alone shall be taken from the payment pension amount.” 4. The appellant-School challenged the said order in W.P. No. 4647 of 2006 on the grounds that the sanctioned strength of teachers, including the Headmaster in the school was only 6, the second respondent-teacher cannot be appointed to the school, exceeding the sanctioned strength and therefore, the order approving the appointment of the second respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction. The appellant has further contended that as there was no vacancy, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai ought to have transferred the second respondent to some other Institution, where there is vacancy. 4. Considering the submissions advanced by the parties with reference to Government Orders applicable to the case of Secondary Grade Teachers, the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 18.9.2007, by observing that if the petitioner/appellant was really aggrieved by the earlier order passed in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003, dated 13.4.2006, the only course open to them was to challenge the same by way of writ appeal and that the appellant cannot question the consequential order dated 13.4.2006 of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai. The Learned Judge further observed that implementation of the orders of this Court made in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003 does not give any new cause of action for the appellant to challenge the final judgment collaterally and the attempt made by the appellant is totally misconceived. After careful analysis of pleadings, this Court. The Learned Judge further observed that implementation of the orders of this Court made in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003 does not give any new cause of action for the appellant to challenge the final judgment collaterally and the attempt made by the appellant is totally misconceived. After careful analysis of pleadings, this Court. came to the conclusion that initiation of the subsequent proceedings, is purely out of an internecine quarrel over the persons to have control over the school Management and awarded a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the second respondent-teacher. 5. Assailing the said judgment, Mr. Subbiah, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003, dated 13.4.2006 can be implemented only in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulations Act and when the Management is receiving grant from the Government, they can accommodate the second respondent, only if there is any vacancy in the school and as per the existing sanctioned teacher strength in the petitioners school, the second respondent cannot be accommodated as Secondary Grade Teacher, as there is no vacancy. 6. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The secretary of the appellant-school has appointed second respondent as Secondary Grade Teacher from 7.1.1998 and thereafter the school has forwarded necessary papers for approval of the appointment. On 6.9.2000, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai, refused the approval, which was challenged by the second respondent in W.P. No. 18121 of 2000. Following the decision in Secretary and Correspondent, Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai Girls Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai Girls Higher Secondary School, Pallapatti v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai -9 and 5 Others ( supra), a learned Judge of this Court directed the District Elementary Officer, Madurai, to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid decision. The appellant was the fourth respondent in the above said writ petition. 8. Pursuant to the said directions, the educational Authority once again rejected the approval on 21.9.2002 on the ground that the appointment was contrary to (1) G.O. Ms. The appellant was the fourth respondent in the above said writ petition. 8. Pursuant to the said directions, the educational Authority once again rejected the approval on 21.9.2002 on the ground that the appointment was contrary to (1) G.O. Ms. No. 559, dated 10.7.1995 (2) since there was a direction to appoint only female-teachers for Standards 1 to 5, the appointment of the second respondent cannot be approved and (3) the teacher was not sponsored through employment exchange. The second respondent was once again constrained to challenge the above rejection order in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003 and this Court, while allowing the said writ petition on 13.4.2006, the learned single Judge has recorded as follows: “10. The only other reason stated in the impugned order is that in standards 1 to 5, only female teachers can be appointed. The said condition was also removed by the Government by issuing subsequent Government Orders and how only 1/3rd posts are reserved for women Teachers. In view of the removal of all disqualifications attached to the petitioners appointment by subsequent Government Orders, petitioner is entitled to get his appointment approved and it is for the respondents to arrange for giving one month Child psychology Training to the petitioner to satisfy the condition imposed in G.O. Ms. No. 155, dated 3.10.2002. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is continuously working without getting salary. Petitioner is to be paid salary from 2.6.2003 as it has been given to other similarly placed teachers. As and when child psychology training is given through D.I.E.T., the petitioner shall undergo the said training. The service of the petitioner from 7.1.1998 to 2.6.2003 shall be counted for pension purposes only as held by the Division Bench decision State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. PalIivasal Primary School State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. PalIivasal Primary School State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. PalIivasal Primary School 2004 (2) LW 591 . Denial of sending the petitioner for training is due to the fault of the respondent and therefore, the same cannot be put against the petitioner for delaying payment of his salary. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as and when the petitioner is sent for training through D.I.E.T., he is willing to undergo, the same and the said undertaking is recorded. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as and when the petitioner is sent for training through D.I.E.T., he is willing to undergo, the same and the said undertaking is recorded. The prayer for quashing Clause 3(IV) in G.O. Ms. No. 155, dated 93.10.2002 has become infructuous In view of the issuance of subsequent G.O. Ms. No. 34 on 17.3.2003. The consequential order of the fourth respondent, dated 21.9.2002 is quashed with a direction to the respondents to approve the, appointment of the petitioner on 2.6.2003 and counter petitioners service for pension from 7.1.1998.” 9. In all these previous litigations Initiated by the second respondent-Teacher, the appellant-School was a party-respondent. Having appointed a teacher in a sanctioned vacancy, the appellant-school, instead of taking up the cause of the teacher and justify his appointment in terms of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act as well as the Government Orders in force, has remained as a mute spectator and made the teacher to litigate from 2002 onwards to fight for his employment in the school. It is no wonder that the Management would not have felt the pain when a teacher loses his job. Admittedly, the appellant has not challenged the order in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003, in which, a direction was given to the educational authority to approve the appointment of the second respondent. 10. If the appointment of the second respondent-teacher was in order as per the sanctioned strength as on 7.1.1998 as observed by the learned single Judge, the objections raised for the first time by the appellant school, after four years is nothing but a display of internecine quarrel over the persons of having control of the Management. It is not the case of the appellant that between 1998 and 2007, there was a fall in student strength and therefore, the second respondent cannot be accommodated in the school. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as Memorandum of grounds, does not disclose as to whether any teacher has been appointed between 1998 and 2006. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-school that there is no vacancy to accommodate the second respondent does not appear to be bona fide. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as Memorandum of grounds, does not disclose as to whether any teacher has been appointed between 1998 and 2006. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-school that there is no vacancy to accommodate the second respondent does not appear to be bona fide. Instead of permitting the second respondent to discharge his duties as Secondary Grade Teacher, it is apparent that the appellant has taken up the case with the educational authorities to somehow see that the second respondent is not employed in the school. As rightly pointed by the learned single Judge, what is sought to be collaterally impugned in the present writ appeal, is the final judgment passed in W.P. No. 4585 of 2003, dated 16.5.2006. The power of judicial review is narrow that the controversy of the dispute alone can be tested in the proceedings which is challenged and it cannot be exercised to strike down or reverse an order passed in an earlier proceeding in which the appellant-school is a party respondent. The decision rendered in the earlier W.P. No. 4585 of 2003, dated 13.4.2006 binds the appellant management and the impugned proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai is nothing but an order of implementation of the directions issued by this Court. 11. Before parting with the case, we sincerely hope that the litigation for approval of the second respondents appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the appellant-school has reached a finality. We find no manifest error in the order of the first respondent in approving the appointment of the second respondent. 12. There is no merit in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. However, the cost awarded by the learned single Judge is deleted. No costs.