Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Secretary of the School Committee of General Cariappa Higher secondary School, Saligramam, Chennai, proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service. By the impugned proceedings, dated 11. 2003, the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai, the second respondent herein, has been addressed to seek approval for the decision of the School Committee to dismiss the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 11. 2003, stating that it is illegal, improper and unjustified. 3. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the impugned proceedings relate to certain charges levelled against the petitioner for which disciplinary action had been initiated in the year, 1998. Based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner and taking into consideration the unblemished service of the petitioner, the then School Committee, by its proceedings, dated 21. 1998, had concluded the disciplinary proceedings by awarding the punishment of censure. When the entire proceedings against the petitioner had reached a finality, it is not open to the fourth respondent school committee to re-open the issue and to pass a resolution to terminate the petitioner from service, based on the same charges. There is no power or jurisdiction for the respondents to re-examine the issue and to impose the extreme punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that the second respondent has not issued any order on the proposal made by the fourth respondent. The petitioner has been continuing in service, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, on 2. 2003, in W.P.M.P.No.5086 of 2003, in W.P.No.4039 of 2003. There is no provision to review the disciplinary case, which had already been the subject matter of the enquiry, resulting in the imposition of the punishment of censure. Hence, the action of the fourth respondent, attempting to re-open and re-examine the issue, is arbitrary and capricious. Further, the impugned order of the fourth respondent cannot take effect unless prior approval had been accorded by the second respondent, under Section 22(1) of the Act. Hence, the action of the fourth respondent, attempting to re-open and re-examine the issue, is arbitrary and capricious. Further, the impugned order of the fourth respondent cannot take effect unless prior approval had been accorded by the second respondent, under Section 22(1) of the Act. However, since the impugned proceedings is only a proposal seeking prior approval to dismiss the petitioner from service, the present writ petition is premature in nature. If and when a final order is passed, it would be open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the first respondent against such an order, under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned, it is clear that the present writ petition, preferred by the petitioner, is premature in nature. Even though, by the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent, dated 11. 2003, it has been proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service, the said proposal cannot be implemented unless the necessary approval is granted by the authority concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been made clear that there is no provision to review the disciplinary case, which had already resulted in the awarding of the punishment of censure, on the petitioner. Further, even if the approval is accorded by the second respondent, under Section 22 (1) of the Act, it would be open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the first respondent challenging the said order, under Section 23 of the Act. In such view of the matter, it is made clear that it is open to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposal of the fourth respondent School Committee made in proceedings, dated 11. 2003, to dismiss the petitioner from service, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, with the above observations. No costs.