Judgment This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records in respect of the proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.292/A3/2001 dated 13. 2001 of the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Katpadi, the 4th respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of Head Master of the Kalvi Ulagam, Sivanandam Aided Elementary School, Kilithanpattarai, Katpadi-632 007, Vellore District from 310. 2000 with continuity of service and payment of arrears of salary and all other attendant benefits. 2. Petitioner joined the services of the fifth respondent school as Higher Grade Teacher on 1. 1979. On 9. 1979, petitioner was upgraded as Secondary Grade Teacher and thereafter, he was appointed as Head Master on 7. 1983. According to the petitioner, there was a change in management. Certain dispute arose between the petitioner and the new management with regard to utilization of funds. According to the petitioner, he was taken to the residence of the 5th respondent, where petitioner was forced to give a letter of resignation dated 15. 1999. The petitioner states that the said letter of resignation is addressed to the Manager of the fifth respondent School. He also states that no action was taken on the basis of the letter of resignation for several months. In November, 2000, the petitioner came to know that in the place of the petitioner some other person is likely to be promoted as Head Master and therefore, petitioner made a representation on 11. 2000 stating the reason as to why a handwritten resignation letter was given on 15. 1999 with a request not to act upon the resignation letter and to allow the petitioner to continue as Head Master. Consequent to the resignation letter dated 15. 1999, the fifth respondent school wrote a letter to the Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Katpadi, the fourth respondent seeking approval of the resignation of the petitioner from the post of Head Master with effect from 310. 2000 and to continue him as Secondary Grade Teacher from 11. 2000. A copy of this proceedings was not communicated to the petitioner. By letter dated 112. 2000, the 5th respondent appointed the sixth respondent as Head Master with retrospective effect from 11. 2000. The sixth respondents service register was sent to the 4th respondent for his approval and endorsement in the service register. In order dated 13. 2000. A copy of this proceedings was not communicated to the petitioner. By letter dated 112. 2000, the 5th respondent appointed the sixth respondent as Head Master with retrospective effect from 11. 2000. The sixth respondents service register was sent to the 4th respondent for his approval and endorsement in the service register. In order dated 13. 2001 in Na.Ka.No.292/A3/2001, the appointment of Mr.Selvanathan, the sixth respondent, as Head Master with effect from 11. 2000 was approved by the fourth respondent based on the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Headmaster. The writ petition is filed challenging the said order dated 13. 2001 as contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, in particular, Thiru Sridhar, counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the impugned order is violative of Rule 17-A which reads as follows:- "17-A. Educational agencies not to obtain compulsorily resignation letter either at the time of appointment or subsequent from the employees in their school:- (1) Whenever a teacher or other person employed in a private school, tenders his resignation of appointment he shall inform the fact of his resignation in writing by registered post with acknowledgment due to the District Educational Officer, Inspectress of Girls School or the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned. (2) x x x (3) x x x (4) No teacher or other person employed in a private school shall be relieved from service on the strength of resignation letter. The resignation letter shall, on receipt, be sent to the Chief Educational Officer concerned in respect of teacher and other persons employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers Training Institutes and to the District Educational Officer concerned in respect of teacher and other person employed in a Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools. The Chief Educational Officer or District Educational Officer concerned shall in turn get the confirmation of the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, as to the fact of such resignation and then accord his approval to relieve the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, from service. The Chief Educational Officer or District Educational Officer concerned shall in turn get the confirmation of the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, as to the fact of such resignation and then accord his approval to relieve the teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, from service. (5) Entries regarding the date of acceptance of resignation of appointment shall be made by the Secretary of the School Committee, in the Teachers Service Registers of the teacher or in the Service Registers of the other persons employed in a private school under proper attestation and duly countersigned by the District Educational Officer or the Inspectress of Girls Schools as the case may be. (6) No substitute shall be appointed in the place of a teacher or other person employed in a private school who has been relieved on the basis of the resignation letter tendered by him, without obtaining prior approval of the Chief Educational Officer concerned in respect of the teacher and other person employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers Training Institutions and the District Educational Officers concerned in respect of teachers and other persons employed in Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as "the Rules" has been violated in pith and substance and the procedure prescribed has not been followed and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent stating that the petitioner resigned voluntarily and therefore, they appointed a new Head Master. As far as the violation of Rule 17-A of the Rule is concerned, it is stated that the fourth respondent has got the power to approve the appointment of another person on resignation by the Headmaster. 5. The provision of Rule 17-A belies the statement of the fourth respondent. Clause (1) of Rule 17-A of the Rules provides that whenever a teacher in a private school, tenders his resignation of appointment he shall inform the fact in writing by registered post with acknowledgment due to the District Educational Officer, Inspectress of Girls School or the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned. Clause (1) of Rule 17-A of the Rules provides that whenever a teacher in a private school, tenders his resignation of appointment he shall inform the fact in writing by registered post with acknowledgment due to the District Educational Officer, Inspectress of Girls School or the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the District Elementary Educational Officer, the third respondent alone is competent authority and not the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent who is not a competent authority in terms of Rule 17-A(1) of the Rules cannot grant approval and it will be contrary to the Rule. Further, the resignation letter is addressed to the Manager of the fifth respondent school which is also contrary to Rule 17-A(1). 6. The so-called resignation letter of the petitioner dated 15. 1999 has not been forwarded to the District Educational Officer who is the competent authority having control over the fifth respondent school and in turn the said authority did not get the confirmation from the teacher/petitioner with regard to the letter of resignation. Without complying with the requirement of Clause (4) of Rule 17-A, the competent authority cannot approve the resignation. 7. Clause 6 of Rule 17-A provides that no substitute shall be appointed in the place of a teacher or others in the private school who have been relieved on the basis of the resignation letter without prior approval of the competent authority. In this case, while appointing the sixth respondent as Head Master in the place of the petitioner, the condition stipulated in clause (6) of Rule 17-A has not been complied with. 8. For all the above said reasons, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and is accordingly set aside with consequential benefits as applicable. 9. In the instant case, the fifth respondent school management has acted contrary to the Rule 17-A of the Rules for which the fourth respondent has granted his approval. The action of the fourth respondent is contrary to Rule 17-A and is without jurisdiction. The various infirmities which have been highlighted by this Court, shows that the impugned proceedings have been passed without observing the various safeguards and procedural requirement set out in Rule 17-A. The mistake has been pointed out by the petitioner in his representation dated 11. The action of the fourth respondent is contrary to Rule 17-A and is without jurisdiction. The various infirmities which have been highlighted by this Court, shows that the impugned proceedings have been passed without observing the various safeguards and procedural requirement set out in Rule 17-A. The mistake has been pointed out by the petitioner in his representation dated 11. 2000 addressed to the Director of School Education (Primary Education), the second respondent herein and the District Elementary Educational Officer, the third respondent herein. After the impugned order was passed, the petitioner sent another representation dated 1. 2001 to the respondents 2 to 4 pointing out the infirmities. However, no action has been taken by the Authorities to correct the error in the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent, who has granted approval to the appointment of the sixth respondent as Head Master contrary to the Rule 17-A. If remedial action has been taken at the appropriate time, the petitioner need not have rushed to this Court. The Department Authorities failed to take action against the Officer concerned, who granted the approval contrary to the said rule, thereby the agony of the petitioner could have been avoided. The Director of School Education (Primary Education), the second respondent herein is directed to issue suitable direction to the concerned Authorities to ensure strict compliance of the Rule and inform them that the breach, if any, will be viewed seriously. This will ensure that the standard of the education is not compromised by the arbitrary action on the part of one or other Officer, who usurps the power which is not vested in him under the Act or under the Rules. 10. The Writ Petition is ordered as above. No costs.