Judgment : By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner association has filed this writ petition for a declaration to declare that the action of the respondents 1 to 6 in allowing the respondents 7 and 8 to effect transfer of teachers and staff from one School to another in terms of and as per the order in Memo No. 45181 E2/60-2 dated 11.06.1960 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently forbear the respondents 7 and 8 from transferring any teacher and staff from one school to another. 3. The petitioner association is registered under the Societies Registration Act bearing Registration No. 29 of 1998. The petitioner association was formed for the purpose of protecting the interest of teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the minority academic educational recognised institutions, including the staff employed in the schools run by the seventh respondent. According to the petitioner, the schools run by the seventh respondent society are all private schools. The seventh respondent is running number of schools at various places at various levels in Tuticorin, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari Districts. The petitioner would contend that each one of the schools run by the seventh respondent has been recognised by the competent authority individually, treating each one of the schools as a separate unit, establishment and entity. According to the petitioner association, the appointment of all the teachers are made only in a particular school/unit and approval for appointment and teaching aid are also granted for each school separately. 4. The petitioner would further contend that the seventh respondent society has no authority or power to transfer either the teaching or non-teaching staff from one school to another, but they have been effecting transfer of the staff from one school to another in order to harass them and also to put them under their mercy and control and the transferred teachers were treated as junior most persons in the transferred school. According to the petitioner association, the transfers made by the seventh respondent are therefore illegal as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Correspondent, (1998) 3 MLJ 595 : (1998) 4 LLN 804. According to the petitioner association, the transfers made by the seventh respondent are therefore illegal as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Correspondent, (1998) 3 MLJ 595 : (1998) 4 LLN 804. As per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, transfer of an employee is not the condition of service and therefore also the respondents 7 and 8 could not effect transfer of the teachers from one school to the other. Though all the RC schools are being run by the same management namely the seventh respondent and the schools are recognised as an individual minority school, no corporate status has been granted or approval or recognisition granted by the Government to the seventh respondent to treat all the schools run by them as a single unit. Further, there is no approval of common seniority list. Under those circumstances, the petitioner association has filed a Review Petition No. 139 of 2007 to review the decision rendered by the Full Bench mentioned above. The Full Bench of this Court disposed of the Review Petition on 12.11.2007 declining to review the order in entirety. But, a direction was given to the educational authority to decide the corporate status of the seventh respondent and also to direct them to maintain a common seniority list. Therefore, the condition of service of the teaching and nonteaching staff is affected besides the transfers effected by the seventh and eighth respondent are not in accordance with law, therefore, they have come forward with the present writ petition. 5. On behalf of the respondents 7 and 8, a counter affidavit was filed. The learned counsel for the respondents 7 and 8 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the association has no locus standi to file this writ petition as it is not affected by any transfers effected by the seventh and eighth respondent. The association, as a body, cannot have any redressal in this case relating to the service condition of the employees of the seventh and eighth respondent management. The association, as a body, cannot have any redressal in this case relating to the service condition of the employees of the seventh and eighth respondent management. There are 1643 staff members working in the sanctioned posts within the corporate management of the seventh respondent and out of those 1643 staff, the petitioner association is only representing 28 staff according to the list produced much after the filing of the writ petition and therefore also, the association has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondents 7 and 8 relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (1995) 1 SCC 85 : (1995) 1 MLJ 64 to say that the writ petition filed by the association is not maintainable. 6. As regards merits of the case, the respondents 7 and 8 would contend that the writ petition is highly belated and it is hit by the principles of laches as the Memorandum dated 11.6.1960 of the first respondent is sought to be challenged in this writ petition indirectly, which is in force for the past 50 years. Therefore also, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, they would contend that Roman Catholic Diocese of Tuticorin has been registered way back in the year 1937 and 1938 as Tuticorin Diocese Association and the Bishop is the President of the Association. In this capacity, he is the Manager of all the educational, technical and charitable institutions established and administered by the diocese namely (i) Primary Schools (ii) Middle Schools (iii) High Schools (iv) Higher Secondary Schools (v) Teacher Training Institutes (vi) Technical and Industrial Institutes and (vii) Orphanages. All these institutions are being administered as one unit under one Manager and the actual working of the Manager is delegated to the Diocesean Superintendent of schools by the Manager, who acts on behalf of the Manager in matters connected with the functioning of the schools through out the Diocese. The respective Correspondent administer the day to day functions of the School, but within the frame work of the directives issued by the Manager. There are certain guidelines issued demarcating the duties to be discharged by the Manager and the guidelines empower the manager to transfer the teachers and employees from one school to the other on administrative exigencies. The respective Correspondent administer the day to day functions of the School, but within the frame work of the directives issued by the Manager. There are certain guidelines issued demarcating the duties to be discharged by the Manager and the guidelines empower the manager to transfer the teachers and employees from one school to the other on administrative exigencies. This practice of the corporate management was also approved by the competent authority vide memorandum No. 45181/E2/60-2, Education dated 11.6.1960. Even before the advent of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Act, 1973, the practice of corporate management to transfer the staff from one school to the other school was in existence and it was also accepted by the Department. The teacher as well as staff who were appointed are very much aware of the administrative guidelines and also their right to get transferred. 7. It was further contended by the respondents 7 and 8 that transfers are not effected in order to harass the staff or to deprive their legal rights, as alleged. In fact, a decision for transfer is made in a transparent manner by the Diocesan Educational Board and transfers are only effected based on seniority and merits as permissible in the minority institution. There is no change of seniority because of transfer to any teacher, in fact, even if a teacher joined in a school at a later point of time than his juniors in service in the same school, he/she may not lose the seniority at the diocesan level. The corporate status of the seventh respondent management has also been accepted by the department for the purpose of transfer of their staff from one school to another within the same management by the proceedings dated 11.9.1960 in Memorandum No. 45181/E2/60 on the file of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Education and Public Health Department. It is further stated that as per the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Review Petition No. 139 of 2007, the competent authority had also examined the documents pertaining to the questions raised in the review application regarding the maintenance of seniority and also issued a proceedings dated 28.1.2009 in Na.Ka. No. 82412/D/E34/07. Therefore, it is only a re-confirmation of the factual position that is followed by the seventh respondent management for more than a century. No. 82412/D/E34/07. Therefore, it is only a re-confirmation of the factual position that is followed by the seventh respondent management for more than a century. In that proceedings, the corporate management of the seventh respondent has been confirmed. Pursuant to the re-confirmation by the authorities and as per the Memorandum dated 11.9.1960, all the transfers effected by the respondents 7 and 8 have been approved. While transferring a staff within the corporate management, it is always the general norm that is followed by the seventh respondent that the condition of service, seniority, pay scale and other emoluments are kept in mind without prejudicing the person transferred. Therefore, they would contend that the petitioners apprehension is ill-founded. Reliance was also placed on Rule 15(4)(ii)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, which provides for corporate management in respect of the corporate body. 8. Further, the respondents 7 and 8 would contend that the transfer of any teacher from one school to another will no way affect their right and privileges. If at all any staff is aggrieved by any anomaly arising out of such transfers, such person can approach the Grievance Committee, which is functioning effectively within the seventh respondent management. Therefore also, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. 9. The respondents 7 and 8 also contended that after the proceedings dated 28.1.2009 issued by the second respondent, there has been totally 15 transfers effected in the academic year 2009-2010 and all the transferred teachers have accepted the order of transfer and joined the transferred post and such orders of transfer was also approved by the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner’s averment that hundreds of staff are affected by the transfer policy is only a blatant lie invited for the purpose of (sic) filing the present writ petition. Further, the department itself has directed the management to transfer or absorb the surplus teachers to other schools where there is strength as per the ratio of 1 : 40. Therefore, under surplus category also, the respondents are entitled to effect transfer of a teacher. Even otherwise, transfer is a legal right of an individual and it cannot be questioned by the petitioner association. 10. Therefore, under surplus category also, the respondents are entitled to effect transfer of a teacher. Even otherwise, transfer is a legal right of an individual and it cannot be questioned by the petitioner association. 10. Lastly, the respondents 7 and 8 would contend that after the Full Bench decision of this Court in Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School, Marthandam v. J. Rabihson Jacob and Others (supra), the very same question was raised before this Court and it was upheld by two Division Bench in the decision in (2002) 2 MLJ 386 : 2002 Writ Law Reporter 538 and (2003) 3 MLJ 835 : 2003 (4) CTC 65 . In those cases, the two Division Benches of this Court upheld that single entity, managing more schools than one, envisaged by Rule 15(4)(ii)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, can transfer the teachers, which does not affect the seniority and emoluments is valid. The very same point was considered by yet another Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 293 and 294 of 2006 dated 6.3.2007, which was subsequently confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. Civil No. 11480 and 11481 of 2007. Therefore also, the writ petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed as a frivolous one. 11. A reply was filed by the petitioner association. It was mainly contended in the reply affidavit, apart from reiterating the contents in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that after the advent of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Act, 1973, the order dated 11.6.1960 will have no force. There is no common seniority maintained by the respondents 7 and 8 or the common seniority list was approved by the department. Therefore, the permission granted by the department is not in accordance with law. The petitioner also contended that the respondents 7 and 8 is not a corporate management. Further, the association has got a legal right to challenge the policy of transfer and not the individual transfer. The transfer policy is not used for effecting transfer on administrative exigency, but only to favour or disfavour a particular person of his or her choice. 12. The respondents 1 to 6 have not filed any counter. Further, the association has got a legal right to challenge the policy of transfer and not the individual transfer. The transfer policy is not used for effecting transfer on administrative exigency, but only to favour or disfavour a particular person of his or her choice. 12. The respondents 1 to 6 have not filed any counter. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would contend that an order has been passed by the department according corporate status to the seventh respondent management pursuant to the order passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the Review Petition No. 139 of 2007 dated 12.11.2007, after considering all the details in connection with the affairs of the seventh respondent and eighth respondent management. In that proceedings, it has been reiterated that the order dated 11.9.1960 has to be continued and the seventh and eighth respondents were permitted to follow the same. Therefore, the seventh respondent institution is a corporate institution and the staff working therein are amenable to transfer. As per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and the order passed in Review Petition thereof, this point is no longer res integra and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Further, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. I have heard all the parties concerned. The main contention of the petitioner is that it is an association representing the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the seventh and eighth respondents management in the matters of their illegal transfer from one school to another. It was further contended that though the seventh respondent had many institutions under its management, every institution is individually given recognition by the educational authorities and grant-in-aid was also granted in respect of the individual institution, therefore, the staff or a teacher cannot be transferred from one school to the another as it affect the rights of the members of the association. They represent the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the seventh and eighth respondents management collectively, therefore, they have got a right to question the action of the respondents 7 and 8. They represent the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in the seventh and eighth respondents management collectively, therefore, they have got a right to question the action of the respondents 7 and 8. They would further contend that even though the Full Bench of this Court has stated that the right is given subject to the condition that earlier the transfer was integral part of service conditions, subsequently, a review petition was filed in which it was also it was stated that even if the respondents 7 and 8 is delinked from the Full Bench decision, yet, before giving any recognition or acceptance, the Government should take into consideration three conditions laid down in the Review Petition namely (i) whether the seniority list is maintained by the Diocese or Society (ii) whether the respondents 7 and 8 is a corporate management and (iii) whether there has been always a teacher inter school. Even after such a direction, the respondents 1 to 6 have not taken into consideration the non-maintenance of seniority list by the respondents 7 and 8. Therefore, even if any promotion is granted subsequent to the order passed in the Review Petition, it is not in accordance with law. Lastly, they would contend that the association is challenging only the policy decision of transfer and not the individual transfer, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents 7 and 8 brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Full Bench reported in Correspondent, Malankara Syrian Catholic School, Marthandam v. J. Rabinson Jacob and Others (supra). The decision rendered by the Full Bench was sought to be reviewed by filing Review Petition No. 139 of 2007 and the same was disposed of on 12.12.2007, wherein it was held as follows: “13. The Full Bench decision need not be reviewed in its entirety since the Full Bench in answer to the question whether transfer is an incident of service had indeed observed that there may be facts and circumstances where transfer would be an incident of service. Therefore, it is not necessary to review the said judgment, rather, we think that the correct course would be to (sic) delink the petitioner’s case, from the batch that was considered by the Full Bench so that the authorities may consider their request on the basis of the documents produced. Therefore, it is not necessary to review the said judgment, rather, we think that the correct course would be to (sic) delink the petitioner’s case, from the batch that was considered by the Full Bench so that the authorities may consider their request on the basis of the documents produced. Accordingly, we dispose of the Review Petition by directing the respondents to consider the question whether the petitioners are a corporate management and whether they maintain a common seniority list and whether there has always been transfer of teachers inter-school and on the basis of the answers to the questions a decision shall be taken in accordance with law within, a period of four weeks. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.” 15. It is stated that subsequent to the decision rendered in the Review Petition, the respondents 7 and 8 have applied to the authorities concerned and thereafter, the order dated 28.1.2009 was passed which categorically recommends the right of the respondents 7 and 8 to follow the Memorandum passed in the year 1960 coupled with the fact that the right of transfer has been accepted, agreed and acted upon. The respondents 7 and 8 would contend that right from the beginning, it is the usual practice and even before the advent of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act itself, from 1960, the conditions stipulated in the memorandum issued in the year 1960 is being followed. They also contend that the corporate character of the seventh and eighth respondents management has also been approved, which is also admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition stating that they are running number of schools. In fact, a list has been attached to show that more than 1300 staff are employed by the seventh and eighth respondents management. Therefore, this writ petition is a frivolous one filed by a few number of persons namely out of the 43 actual members, only 25 staff have joined together and on whose behalf the association has filed the present writ petition. In any view of the matter, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the association is not maintainable. 16. In this connection, reference has to be made to the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Kasi Mutt Educational Agency etc. v. Commissioner of Collegiate Education etc. In any view of the matter, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the association is not maintainable. 16. In this connection, reference has to be made to the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Kasi Mutt Educational Agency etc. v. Commissioner of Collegiate Education etc. and Others (supra) and Manager, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society v. G. Vincent Paulraj (supra). The order passed by yet another Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 293 and 294 of 2006 dated 6.3.2007 was subsequently confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. Civil No. 11480 and 11481 of 2007 which would make it clear that these points are no more res integra. 17. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the parties, the first and foremost point for consideration is whether the writ petition is maintainable by the association or not. Though the petitioner association is a registered body, the petitioner association has not come out with the actual grievance or any representation made ventilating such grievance by any individual member of the society. Contra, this writ petition is filed by the association on behalf of the members who are stated to be aggrieved by passing of orders of transfer by the respondents 7 and 8. As per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Mahinder Kumar Gupta and Others v. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (supra), the association making sweeping statement and sweeping relief without reference to the actual grievance are not entitled to maintain a writ petition, especially in this case, when it is proved that subsequent to the approval granted by the Government in 2009, there had been only 15 transfer of staff effected and all the transferees have accepted the transfer and joined the transferred place, which was also subsequently approved by the Government. Contra, in the pleadings, the petitioner association would contend that there are hundreds of transfers effected by the respondents 7 and 8, which itself would clearly indicate that the association is exaggerating something which is not true or there is no basis for the same. Contra, in the pleadings, the petitioner association would contend that there are hundreds of transfers effected by the respondents 7 and 8, which itself would clearly indicate that the association is exaggerating something which is not true or there is no basis for the same. Apart from this, in the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Madurai, through its (2006) 4 MLJ 385 : 2006 (1) CTC 776 , it was categorically held that an association cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction to enforce the rights of its members, even though such rights assume to exists. It was further held that ordinarily, the rights of individual members alone can be enforced by means of a writ petition and dismissed the writ petition filed by the members relating to orders of transfers. 18. In the decision rendered in AIR 2001 SC 1739 : (2001) 4 SCC 734 , the Honourable Supreme Court categorically stated that when there was a situation mentioned in the petition, which allegedly incapacitated the affected person from filing the writ petition, then the writ petition filed on their behalf even by an advocate is not maintainable and the writ petition was dismissed. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision in AIR 2004 SC 1426 : (2004) 1 SCC 755 : 2004-I-LLJ-596 to say that the writ petition is maintainable. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the applicability of Payment of Gratuity Act to the workmen. It was held that even though the Workmen did not come to Court and merely because the Association has filed the writ petition, it cannot be dismissed. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court considered the question as to whether teachers should be treated as included in the expression “unskilled” or skilled’ for applicability under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It was also held that in several States already a separate statues, rule and regulations granting gratuity benefits to teachers in educational institutions which are more or less beneficial than the gratuity benefits provided under the Payment of Gratuity. Only under those circumstances, the writ petition filed by the Association was entertained by the Honourable Supreme Court. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision rendered in 1993-I-LLJ-57 for the proposition that the writ petition filed by a Trade Union is maintainable. Only under those circumstances, the writ petition filed by the Association was entertained by the Honourable Supreme Court. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision rendered in 1993-I-LLJ-57 for the proposition that the writ petition filed by a Trade Union is maintainable. In that case, the Division Bench had an occasion to consider the question regarding violation of Regulation 12(2) in investing provident Fund in a fixed deposit of the Nationalised Bank. In that case, a larger issue as to the liability of the bank in respect of deposit of funds of employees was considered and held that the Trade Union is the proper person to defend the case. That judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. The present facts and circumstances of the case on hand cannot be considered to be the same as that of the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I hold that this writ petition filed by the petitioner association is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. 21. Insofar as merits of the case is concerned, the only point raised by the petitioner association is that the seventh respondent could not be construed as a corporate management arid the rights of the members of the petitioner association, who are transferred, is affected because they were treated as junior most person in the transferred place. In this connection, it is to be stated that in the review petition filed by the petitioner before the Full Bench of this Court, the Government was directed to pass necessary orders after taking into consideration the character of the management, its corporate status and the maintenance of the seniority list. After the order was passed in the review petition, the Government has passed final orders on 28.1.2009 granting permission for the management to follow the 1960 Memorandum. The Government also concluded that the respondents 7 and 8 have right to transfer its staff. This order was not challenged by the petitioner. In other words, virtually, the petitioner association has challenged the Memorandum of the year 1960 in the present writ petition, which, under law, cannot be permitted. The Government also concluded that the respondents 7 and 8 have right to transfer its staff. This order was not challenged by the petitioner. In other words, virtually, the petitioner association has challenged the Memorandum of the year 1960 in the present writ petition, which, under law, cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, the question now putforth by the petitioner association is the right to transfer the employees by the seventh respondent from among various schools which has adversely affect its members, but none of the individual members have challenged the order of transfer. Contra, the orders of transfer was accepted and acted upon by the individual members. Further, even such orders of transfer can be questioned, only if it affects their condition of service, including seniority. 22. In this case, it is made clear in the counter affidavit by the respondents 7 and 8 that in so far as seniority is concerned, the Diocese maintains a seniority in the Diocese level and the Bishop is delegated with the power through the Manager, who in turn effects transfers in accordance with seniority. Further, the person who is transferred to other school automatically retains the seniority insofar as Diocese level is concerned. It is further stated that even in respect of a teacher, who joined at a later point of time, he or she will not forgo the seniority. Therefore, when once the seniority is maintained at the Diocese level, as per the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the review petition and as per the order passed on 28.1.2009 in favour of the respondents 7 and 8, it is no more open to any one, much less the petitioner association, to contend that the orders of transfer effected by the respondents 7 and 8 infringed the service conditions of the transferred teacher. In any view of the matter, this point has been answered by the Division Bench in the judgment in Sri Kasi Mutt Educational Agency etc. v. Commissioner of Collegiate Education etc. and Others (supra) stating that the educational agency, having two or three colleges under its corporate control, has power to transfer teacher strictly in accordance with Rule 11(4) of the Rules relating to conditions of service. v. Commissioner of Collegiate Education etc. and Others (supra) stating that the educational agency, having two or three colleges under its corporate control, has power to transfer teacher strictly in accordance with Rule 11(4) of the Rules relating to conditions of service. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Manager, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society and Another v. G. Vincent Paulraj (supra) in which the Salem Social Services Society, which was maintaining 43 schools, transferred their teaching staff from one school to another, the Division Bench held that the transfer is not prohibited by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and such transfer can be resorted to if transfer is an incident of service according to terms and conditions of contract between the management. It was also held that the management cannot deprive teacher of his or her benefits of service prior to such transfer. This decision of the Division Bench also held that Rule 15(4)(ii)(c) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules envisages such transfer by the corporate school and it does not affect the seniority and emoluments paid to them. 23. In the unreported decision rendered in W.A. No. 293 and 294 of 2006 dated 6.3.2007, a Division Bench of this Court, following the decision rendered in Manager, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society and Another v. G. Vincent Paulraj (supra) held that several schools run by the single Unit is a legal entity and promotions being made from the common pool of teachers serving in all such school is valid. As against the decision of the Division Bench dated 6.3.2007, S.L.P. (C) No. 11480 to 11481 of 2007 was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, by an order dated 27.7.2007 upheld the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Even other wise, the Corporate management is permitted and recognised under Rule 15(4)(ii)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which reads as follows: “15. Qualification, conditions of service of teachers and other persons: (4)(i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. Even other wise, the Corporate management is permitted and recognised under Rule 15(4)(ii)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which reads as follows: “15. Qualification, conditions of service of teachers and other persons: (4)(i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. (ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the following methods: i) Promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school ii) if no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method (i) above (a) Appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers: (b) Appointment of teachers from any other school: (c) Direct recruitment.” 24. In the present case, subsequent to the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the Review Petition No. 139 of 2007 dated 12.11.2007, the Director of School Education has passed an order on 28.1.2009 to the effect that the respondents 7 and 8 are governed by the Memorandum dated 11.6.1960 and they were permitted to transfer its staff as it is a corporate body. As already stated above, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 28.1.2009 and it had reached a finality. In any event, the very same matter was adjudicated upon by the Honourable Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore also, even on merits, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 25. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.