Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr.S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. P. Pandithurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S. Rajasekar, learned Government Advocate representing the official respondent and Mr. Govindarajan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the records. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 03. 1996 and an order of status quo was granted by this Court. 3. The petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal is the same person. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 09.01.1996 passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai wherein the said officer had fixed the staff strength for the third respondent School for the year 1995-96. As per the said order, it was declared that the post of Junior Mechanic held by the petitioner was surplus to the requirement of the said school and he was to be redeployed to some other needy school. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners services were transferred to Murugappa Higher Secondary School at Kallal. The petitioner had not joined in the said school. But however, he was relieved from service on 06. 1996. 4. The petitioner also filed W.P. No. 8307 of 1996 seeking to challenge the order dated 35. 1996 and he also sought for an interim relief in that writ petition. It was stated in the writ petition that one Engineering Instructor in that school had retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 35. 1999 and, therefore, the petitioners services can be absorbed against the said post. Accepting the said argument, this Court by an order dated 18. 1999, allowed the writ petition partly regarding absorption but denied back wages. But, however, with reference to salary, this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ appeal being W.A. No. 1130 of 2001. The said writ appeal was admitted on 17. 2001. 5. The School Management also filed another writ appeal being W.A. No. 2612 of 1999 against the said order dated 18. 1999. Subsequently, the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24. 2003. 6. In view of the interconnectivity between the two cases, the matters were clubbed together and a common judgment is passed. 7. Mr. Subbiah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. 1999. Subsequently, the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24. 2003. 6. In view of the interconnectivity between the two cases, the matters were clubbed together and a common judgment is passed. 7. Mr. Subbiah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pandithurai, learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition submitted that the order of the Chief Educational Officer in declaring the services of the petitioner as surplus was not proper and he did not take into account the exact staff strength of the said School. 8. However, the Headmaster of the School has filed an affidavit stating that during the year 1999-2000, no student was admitted in the XIth Std. for the vocational stream and in the XIIth Std., there were only 17 students. They had also informed about the students strength to the Chief Educational Officer and requested permission to wind up the said course. This fact was not challenged by the petitioner appellant before any forum. The argument that his services are entitled to be adjusted against the vacancy to be caused due to a teacher retiring on 33. 1999 cannot grant him any cause of action to continue in the school. In fact, the so-called vacancy arose after three years after his redeployment. It was also not clear whether the said vacancy will be allowed to be filled up by the Department. The petitioner on his own folly, had not utilised the offer of redeployment by which his salary and status were protected by rendering service in some other school. 9. The argument of the learned counsel that there is no power to transfer a person from one school to another school is only stated to be rejected. Admittedly, the third respondent school is a recognised private school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The said School is also getting cent percent grant from the State Government and the issuance of the grant is covered by the Grant-in-aid code. The payment of grant is linked to the economic strength of the students admitted by the school. Therefore, the impugned order of the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, dated 09.01.1996 is only an intimation sent to the school that they are not eligible to have the second post of Junior Mechanic. The payment of grant is linked to the economic strength of the students admitted by the school. Therefore, the impugned order of the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, dated 09.01.1996 is only an intimation sent to the school that they are not eligible to have the second post of Junior Mechanic. Therefore, it is not a case of transfer but an enabling provision under Section 26 of the Private Schools Act by which the Government can redeploy the surplus teachers to needy schools. If the petitioner was not acceptable for any such re-deployment, the result will be that he will be sent out of service of the school in which his post has become surplus. The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the re-deployment and not rendered service either in the original school or in the redeployed school cannot expect the official respondents to pay wages for the said period. Therefore, the order dated 18. 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 8307 of 1996 does not call for any interference. 10. The writ petition being W.P. No. 2678 of 1996 will also have to fail since the petitioner had not proved that the school has economic strength for his continued service in the said school. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above, both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition must fail and accordingly, they will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.