Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent in O.Mu.No.5272/B2/05 dated 08. 2005 and consequently directing the 2nd Respondent to approve the appointment of P.Saravanan, Headmaster and disburse his salary in full. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioners school is an Aided Middle School having a strength of 303 students studying upto 8th standard situated in Vadakuthu (East) Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. Post of Headmaster in the Petitioners Middle School fell vacant on 06. 2002. Petitioners school intimated the said fact to the Respondents authorities and sought permission to fill up the said vacancy. (ii) On 09. 2002, first Respondent issued Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.30319/EG.2/2002 prescribing a condition that for appointment of Headmaster in a Middle School, the candidate should have 5 years experience as Assistant Teacher and the said Proceedings came into force only on 19. 2002. (iii) Inspite of its efforts, Petitioners school could not find a suitable candidate. Application of Saravanan was placed before the School Committee for consideration. After due consideration of existence of vacancy to the post of Headmaster, the non-availability of suitable candidate through employment exchange and from other sources, the School Committee has passed a resolution appointing Saravanan as Headmaster to the Petitioners Middle School on consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/-w.e.f. 24. 2005. After appointment of Saravanan as Headmaster, Petitioners Management forwarded the said appointment order to the 3rd Respondent for due approval of appointment by the 2nd Respondent who is the Competent Authority. But the 2nd Respondent has passed the impugned Proceedings O.Mu.No.5272/B2/05 dated 08. 2005 rejecting the said appointment. (iv) The impugned Proceedings is challenged on the ground that even after elaborate search for suitable candidate for the post of Headmaster from employment exchange and from other neighbouring schools of the said Zone, Petitioners school could not find a suitable candidate. According to the Petitioners school Management, Saravanan belongs to Schedule Caste community and is suitable candidate for being appointed and while so, the order of rejection of appointment is arbitrary and unsustainable. 3. Second Respondent has filed counter stating that Saravanan was appointed as Headmaster w.e.f. 24. 2005 on consolidated pay. According to the Respondents, by the impugned Proceedings, appointment of Saravanan was refused on the ground of want of 5 years teaching experience. According to the Respondents, the crucial date of 19. 3. Second Respondent has filed counter stating that Saravanan was appointed as Headmaster w.e.f. 24. 2005 on consolidated pay. According to the Respondents, by the impugned Proceedings, appointment of Saravanan was refused on the ground of want of 5 years teaching experience. According to the Respondents, the crucial date of 19. 2002 has to be reckoned as the date of appointment and not the date on which the vacancy arose. Therefore, appointment of Saravanan was not approved. Second Respondent further averred that the Management of Petitioners school ought to have obtained fresh list from the employment exchange. That apart Saravanan is a B.Ed. Teacher and had not obtained decree in the prescribed subjects such as English, Science and Mathematics as per G.O.Ms.No.100, Education dated 26. 2003 which alone entitles for appointment. Since Saravanan had obtained decree in History, he is not eligible for appointment as per the Government Order. 4. Mr. M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Management of the Petitioners school has taken all efforts to search for a suitable candidate and Petitioner has also enclosed the non-availability certificate and while so, 2nd Respondent ought to have approved the appointment of said Saravanan as Headmaster of the Petitioners school. 5. Mrs. Dhakshayani Reddy, learned AGP (Education), appearing for the Respondents has contended that as per Rule 15(6) Annexure-V of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 & Rules 1974 only candidates with 5 years of teaching experience are eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster. Learned AGP (Education) further contended that by order dated 09. 2002, 1st Respondent had issued instructions to disapprove the appointment of Headmasters made after 19. 2002, when such Headmaster appointees have no teaching practice of 5 years. 6. Saravanan was appointed as Headmaster w.e.f. 24. 2005 on consolidated pay. His appointment was refused on the ground viz., want of 5 years teaching experience. According to the Respondents, proposal for approval was rejected on the ground that Saravanan was not possessed of 5 years teaching experience and therefore, not eligible for appointment as Headmaster. 7. Management of the Petitioners school did search for a suitable candidate through employment exchange and other sources. But could not find a suitable candidate. Saravanan had experience of 3 years 10 months and 19 days as teaching Assistant with B.A. B.Ed. qualifications. 7. Management of the Petitioners school did search for a suitable candidate through employment exchange and other sources. But could not find a suitable candidate. Saravanan had experience of 3 years 10 months and 19 days as teaching Assistant with B.A. B.Ed. qualifications. Though, he was found to be short of required teaching experience of 5 years, after considering the qualifications of the said candidate, Petitioners school Committee had passed resolution appointing Saravanan as Headmaster of the Petitioners Middle school. The said Saravanan had also given specific undertaking that he is prepared to function as Headmaster and take salary as B.T. Assistant till he completes 5 years and thereafter, he may be paid the scale applicable to the post of Headmaster. 8. In this regard, learned counsel for the Petitioners school has drawn the attention of Court to the Proceedings in respect of appointment of one Praveenraj as Headmaster of Nallattur Appar Aided Middle school in Nallattur. Proposal for appointment of the said Praveenraj was rejected by the District Elementary Educational Officer. In the appeal preferred by Nallattur Appar Aided Middle school, first Respondent has passed the following order:- Learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed that the same relaxation could be given to the appointment of Saravanan and that suitable directions to be given to pass similar order. 1st Respondent is the Competent Authority to relax the prescribed qualifications and pass appropriate orders. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- Petitioners school is directed to file appeal to the 1st Respondent – Director of Elementary Education, Tamil Nadu within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. On such appeal, 1st Respondent shall consider the same and pass orders like in other instances in the light of G.O.Ms.No.97 (School Education Dept.) dated 07. 2001 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of appeal.