Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the fifth respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner School has been established in the year, 1953. It is a recognised Private school offering education from standards I to V. The petitioner School is receiving aid from the State Government. The school has one Headmaster and 18 Secondary Grade teachers. It has a total strength of 810 students. The medium of instruction in the school is Tamil. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner School had taken disciplinary action against Ms.V.Jayanthi, a secondary grade teacher, on certain charges leveled against her. The school committee, after conducting a detailed enquiry, had resolved to dismiss her from service. The then District Elementary Educational Officer had also given his approval, by his proceedings, dated 37. 2006. However, on the appeal filed by the said teacher, the Joint Director of Elementary Education had set aside the order of dismissal, vide his proceedings, dated 15. 2008. Since the said order had been passed without hearing the school management a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.13219 of 2008. By an order, dated 7. 2008, this Court had upheld the order of the Joint Director. However, it had left the matter open to the management of the school to proceed further, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner Management had submitted fresh proposals, dated 18. 2008, to the District Elementary Educational Officer, for his prior approval, to dismiss the teacher from service. However, the District Elementary Educational Officer had not passed any orders on the said proposal. Therefore, the petitioner Management had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.30058 of 2008, praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the District Elementary Educational Officer to pass orders on the proposal made by the petitioner Management. 3. While so, the District Elementary Educational Officer has pressurised the petitioner Management to drop the proceedings initiated against the teacher, Ms.V.Jayanthi. Since the petitioner Management had not yielded to the pressure exerted by the District Elementary Educational Officer, he had issued the impugned order, dated 112. 2008, ordering direct payment of the salary to the staff of the school. 3. While so, the District Elementary Educational Officer has pressurised the petitioner Management to drop the proceedings initiated against the teacher, Ms.V.Jayanthi. Since the petitioner Management had not yielded to the pressure exerted by the District Elementary Educational Officer, he had issued the impugned order, dated 112. 2008, ordering direct payment of the salary to the staff of the school. The said order had been issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, without having the power or jurisdiction to do so. The said order has been issued in exercise of the powers prescribed, under Section 18-A(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and A in Chapter IV-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, relating to appointment of Special Officers to manage the institutions, under certain circumstances. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 112. 2008, without having the jurisdiction to do so. No notice had been issued to the petitioner Management before the said order had been issued. No opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner management before the impugned order, dated 112. 2008, had been passed by the third respondent. Since the impugned order, dated 112. 2008, had been issued by the third respondent, without jurisdiction and without following the principles of natural justice, it is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that there is no need to issue a prior notice to the petitioner Management, before an order is passed, for payment of salaries, by direct payment. If such direct payment is found to be necessary, in the interest of the institution or in public interest, no damage or harm or prejudice is done to the petitioner Management by the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 112. 2008. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. If such direct payment is found to be necessary, in the interest of the institution or in public interest, no damage or harm or prejudice is done to the petitioner Management by the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 112. 2008. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on a decision of this Court, reported in Papanasam Labour Welfare Association HS School V. Chief Educational Officer ( 1998 (III) CTC 753 ), wherein, it had been held that when direct salaries are paid to the teachers, there is a serious encroachment on the principles of the management of the educational institution. Since it has certain civil consequences, principles of natural justice would have to be followed in such cases. 7. In view of the submissionsmade by the learned counsels for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the decision cited above, it is found that the third respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 112. 2008, making direct payments to the staff and the employees of the petitioner school, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner management. The impugned order, dated 112. 2008, has been passed by the third respondent, without showing sufficient cause or reasons for the passing of the said order. Unless, it is shown that special circumstances had existed for denying the petitioner Management the privilege of making direct payments to its staff and its employees, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Principles of natural justice ought to have been followed, by the third respondent, before passing the impugned order, dated 112. 2008. Further, it has not been shown that the impugned order, dated 112. 2008, had been passed by the third respondent, in the interest of institution or in public interest. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the third respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. However, it is open to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Management. The writ petition is allowed to the extent noted above. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.