Judgment :- The petitioner is a Teacher working in the 3rd respondent Aided Middle School at Ayakkaranpulam – II Sethi Post. The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to resort to direct payment to the staff of the 3rd respondent School or take over the School by the Department of Elementary Education and pass order as it deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent Manager/Correspondent is not running the School in the manner provided under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. He has manipulated the records to show the students attendance with higher figures so as to retain the status of the Middle School. He also has intention to appoint his own kith and kin as the next Headmaster of the School. Even though the School was not having a regular Headmaster and the petitioner having fully qualified to hold for the post, for the reasons best known to him, the post is not filled up. The petitioner has only 3 years of service and by the action of the 3rd respondent, he has not been given the post of Headmaster till date. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation to the authorities about the alleged irregularities committed by the 3rd respondent with reference to manipulating the students strength and other irregularities. The petitioner also caused a legal notice to be issued to various authorities dated 16.1.2010. When there was no response from the authorities, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. During the course of the arguments, Mr.N.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent is paternal Uncle of the petitioner and actually the School itself was founded by his father. The stand of the petitioner that either he should be promoted to the post of Headmaster or in the absence of the same, the School must be taken over by the Government cannot be appreciated. 4. It is seen from the records produced by the petitioner that the School is exclusively not being patronised by the local public and for a Middle School, the present students strength as per the Register is only 105. However, the School is having a sanctioned post of 6 Teachers. 4. It is seen from the records produced by the petitioner that the School is exclusively not being patronised by the local public and for a Middle School, the present students strength as per the Register is only 105. However, the School is having a sanctioned post of 6 Teachers. The petitioner has made further allegation that the actual attendance as found by the Inspection Report was far less and it is anywhere in the range of 37 to 43. If the students strength has gone down considerably, the only option is to redeploy the Teachers to some other needy School. After working in the said Institution and having indirectly being contributed to the reduction in the students strength, it is surprising that the petitioner claims for the post of Headmaster. Even as per the admission of the petitioner, the School has normal students strength, which requires extra number of posts. 5. In any event, the claim for Headmaster post is squarely covered by the statutory Rules framed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. If any irregular appointments are made contrary to the statute, Rule 15 (4-A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974 provides for appeal under the Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the claim made by the petitioner to become the Headmaster of the School. Even under Rule 15, the post of Headmaster can be filled up not by seniority but by selection process. It is only when merit and ability are approximately equal, then the question of seniority being preferred will arise. If the grievance of the petitioner regarding filling up the post of Headmaster is not available, then there is no allegation in the complaint made by the petitioner that the salary to be paid to the Teacher is either denied or deducted illegally. On the contrary, already the Government has introduced the Electronic Credit System (ECS). Therefore, the only other question, if the School is run with a false students strength, then it is a case for the Government to apply their mind and invoke the necessary provisions under the Act. Whether it is a case of Section 18( A) or Section 34, it involves an appropriate report from the Department of School Education and final decision will be taken by the Government. Whether it is a case of Section 18( A) or Section 34, it involves an appropriate report from the Department of School Education and final decision will be taken by the Government. At the instance of aggrieved Teacher with sole complaint of his non-promotion and also he is being nephew of the School Manager, this Court is not inclined to entertain such a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is filed not in public interest but only on the personal grievance of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.