Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to count the services rendered by him at Mumbai Kamaraj Memorial English High School, Dharavi, Mumbai for a period of 5 = years as B.T.Assistant between 01.12.1983 and 24.06.1989 as his past service for the purpose of rendering all the benefits which he is entitled to in the post of Headmaster of the 6th respondent school. 2. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on 08.12.2009. Pending the writ petition, in the application for interim direction, no orders have been passed. 3. After notice to the respondents, on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. The 6th respondent though served is not appearing either through an authorised representative or through counsel. 4. The contention made by the petitioner was that he had worked as B.T.Assistant from 01.12.1983 till 24.06.1989 in the Mumbai Memorial English High School, Dharavi which is a recognised school by the Maharashtra State Government. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for the post of Middle School Headmaster in the 6th respondent School. He was selected and appointed on 08.12.1989 and he is continuously working in the 6th respondent school, which is a recognised private school fully aided by the State Government. The appointment of the petitioner as a Middle School Headmaster was duly recognised by the official respondents. He was also given all increments due pursuant to his appointment till 01.10.2006. Thereafter, his further increments were stopped on the sole reason that he did not have 5 years teaching experience at the time of his appointment as Headmaster in the 6th respondent School. 5. The 6th respondent vide letter dated 07.11.2004 requested the second respondent to make entry in the Service Register of the petitioner about past service of 5 = years in the Mumbai School. The petitioner and the 6th respondent School had also sent several representations requesting the official respondents to consider the teaching experience acquired by the petitioner at Mumbai. But their representations have not been answered by the official respondents. The petitioner strongly placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court in Christ Academy v. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training and another made in W.P.No.7313 of 2007 dated 01.03.2007. But their representations have not been answered by the official respondents. The petitioner strongly placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court in Christ Academy v. The Director of Teacher Education Research and Training and another made in W.P.No.7313 of 2007 dated 01.03.2007. In that case, the question arose for consideration is whether the candidate who had rendered service in an institution at Munnar, Kerala State can be counted as a teaching experience for the purpose of employment in the Teacher Training Institute. This Court held that if the service certificate produced by a candidate was genuine, then the State Government was bound to consider the same without rejecting it on the ground that he had work experience from another state. But in the present case, the Court is not dealing with the employment in a Teacher Training Institute. The employment concerned is governed by provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder. Under Rule 15(6) prescribed under Sections 19 and 12 of the Act, the Headmaster of the School must have worked as a Teacher in a recognised school for a period of not less than 5 years after obtaining BT or its equivalent degree. The question looms large as to what is meant by 'recognition' nowhere in the Act or in the Rules talks about recognition granted by some other state body or some other state. Therefore, the word 'recognition' can only have reference to Section 11 of the Act wherein, the recognition must be rendered under the provisions of this Act. Even under Annexure III prescribed under Rule 19, it was stated that before releasing the Teaching Grant or Staff Grant, the District Educational Officer shall verify and satisfy himself as to whether the appointment made by the School Committee is in accordance with the Rules and government orders in force. With reference to the certificate produced from other state in Annexure V, Explanation to Paragraph IV states that the Director of School Education shall be the authority competent to evaluate and accept other qualifications for appointments in schools. A combined reading of these provisions clearly shows that in case any certificate is obtained from any other State, the evaluation power is given to the Director of School Education. A combined reading of these provisions clearly shows that in case any certificate is obtained from any other State, the evaluation power is given to the Director of School Education. In other respects, the District Educational Officer is bound to satisfy himself whether the teacher is having the qualification prescribed under the Act. Under Section 20 of the said Act, it is injuncted that no persons who do not possess the qualifications after the date if the commencement of the Act can be appointed as a Teacher in any school. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly placed reliance upon two government orders issued in G.O.Ms.1069 Education Science and Technology dated 06.06.1983 and G.O.Ms.No.601 Education Department, dated 27.04.1968. In both the Government Orders, the State Government ratified the appointment of two teachers who were working under the Minority schools having obtained certificate from Karnataka State. In the present case, there is no order of the Government recognising the service of the petitioner as equivalent to the service required under the relevant Rules. Therefore, in the absence of any legal or enforceable right on the part of the petitioner, no direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was stated that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was never informed about the minimum experience required for holding the said post. It was also stated in paragraph 5 of the counter that after stopping of the increments to the petitioner, the 6th respondent school has not sent any further proposal to regularise the past service rendered by him. 8. Under the above circumstances, the present direction sought for without challenging any order of the Government or any relevant rules cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.