Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. Without obeying the orders of redeployment to join duty in Buddar Middle School, Periyakulam and without the recognition of appropriate authority, when the Headmistress has established and administered her own school, whether the first respondent/ Headmistress would be entitled to claim salary and whether the single Judge was right in directing the authorities to pay her salary are the points falling for consideration in this appeal. 2. Background facts:- (i) The matter had a chequered history of several rounds of litigations filed from the year 1986. The Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School was granted recognition on 17.11.1957 and school was originally managed by one Ebenezer. The 1st respondent was working as Headmistress in the said School and her husband - Kalanidhi @ Raju was financing the said school. Ebinazer transferred the management of the School to Perumal Chettiar, which was challenged by Raju -husband of 1st respondent in O.S.No.215 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam. The suit was against Ebenezer and Perumal Chettiar and two other official respondents. Since the Court passed an order of status quo, Government could not pass the order transferring the Management to Perumal Chettiar. (ii) Ebenezer was not willing to take over management of the school. Since the School was in a highly dilapidated condition the District Educational Officer, Periyakulam in his letter Na.Ka.No.16110 A-2/85 dated 27.4.1989 issued instructions to Perumal Chettiar and the 1st respondent who was then working as Headmistress to shift the school to some other safe place. The school was not shifted, which necessitated the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai to issue proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.22213 A3/89 dated 18.8.1989 assigning the responsibility of the School to Deputy Inspector Schools, Thenkarai Range and ordered direct payment to the teachers working in the School. When the School was under the direct control of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Thenkarai Range, the school was shifted to a nearby place within the vicinity of Perumalpuram village and started functioning in the new place from 7.10.1989. (iii) In the new shifted place, law and order problem arose between the 1st respondent and village people, which led to filing of cases against the villagers. Due to law and order problem, the District Educational Officer, Periyakulam ordered indefinite closure of the school from 5.6.1990. In his proceedings dated 7.1.1991, Chief Educational Officer, Madurai issued orders withdrawing the recognition to Gandhi Vidyalayam Primary School, Perumalpuram. Due to law and order problem, the District Educational Officer, Periyakulam ordered indefinite closure of the school from 5.6.1990. In his proceedings dated 7.1.1991, Chief Educational Officer, Madurai issued orders withdrawing the recognition to Gandhi Vidyalayam Primary School, Perumalpuram. By separate proceedings in Na.Ka.No.16110/B-2/85 dated 17.9.1990, District Educational Officer, Periyakulam, the other two teachers - Pasupathi and Rajaram were deployed to other schools. In obedience to the order of redeployment, the said teachers Pasupathi and Rajaram joined the deployed schools. By a separate proceedings in Na.Ka.No.16110/B-2/85, dated 17.9.1990, 1st respondent was deployed to Buddar School, Periyakulam. The first respondent did not obey the order of redeployment and she challenged the said order in W.P.No.16612 of 1990. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the order dated 29.10.1990 giving liberty to the 1st respondent to file representation before the concerned Joint Director of School Education. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition, 1st respondent filed W.A.No.1112 of 1990, which also came to be dismissed by the Judgment dated 14.11.1990. Without obeying the order of redeployment, the 1st respondent continued to run the school in a house without any recognition from the competent authority. (iv) As per the direction in W.P.No.16612 of 1990, the Chief Educational Officer considered the representation of 1st respondent. In the proceedings Na.Ka.No.24067 A3/86 dated 7.1.1991, it was stated that in order to avoid loss of job and to give job security, the 1st respondent and two other teachers, who worked in Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School, were offered with the jobs in other schools and the other two teachers joined the new schools but only the 1st respondent Vellaiammal has not accepted the job in the new school viz., Buddar School, Periyakulam. In the said proceedings, Chief Educational Officer has stated as under: "... When the school had been closed permanently, in order to offer the job security to the teachers who are about to lose their jobs, the department officers, could only transfer them to another school with the vacancy and on this basis, as per the proceedings referred to 1 herein above, Tmt. C. Vellaiammal was provided with a job in the Buthar Middle School, Periyakulam. In this new job, to accept the job or not is the desire of Tmt. Vellaiammal. In the event that Tmt. C. Vellaiammal was provided with a job in the Buthar Middle School, Periyakulam. In this new job, to accept the job or not is the desire of Tmt. Vellaiammal. In the event that Tmt. C. Vellaiammal not accepting the new job offered to her on the basis of job security, for the loss of job and the other consequences on account of the same the officers could not be held liable and this is strictly informed through this." (v) W.P.No.2509 of 1991: Challenging the Order of redeployment and the proceedings dated 7.1.1991 directing the 1st respondent to comply with the Order of redeployment, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.2509 of 1991. The said W.P.No.2509 of 1991 was disposed of by Order dated 28.6.1996. (vi) W.P.No.3947 of 1992:- On the same day -7.1.1991, under a separate proceedings in Na.Ka.No.24067/86, the Chief Educational Officer passed a detailed order withdrawing the recognition granted to Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School, Perumalpuram. In W.P.No.3947 of 1992, Perumal Chettiar challenged the Order dated 7.1.1991 withdrawing the recognition. By Order dated 25.9.1995, the impugned order Na.Ka.No..24067/86 dated 7.1.1991 withdrawing the recognition was set aside. The Writ Court held that it is open to the officials, if so desired to proceed afresh with the matter in accordance with law in regard to withdrawing or cancellation of the recognition of the Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School in the light of the observation made in the order. It was directed that the claim of Perumal Chettiar to recognise as a Manager/Educational Agency has to be considered by the appropriate authority on the basis of the materials or as per the decision of the Civil Court. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that O.S.No.215 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam filed by husband of 1st respondent against Ebenezer was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14.2.1996. (vii) Post W.P.No.3947 of 1992:-In compliance with the order of the High Court in W.P.No.3947 of 1992, Ebenezer was called upon to attend enquiry conducted by Joint Director of Elementary Education. Ebenezer did not attend enquiry. One V. Susila, who was also claiming right of school Management, was also called upon to attend enquiry. The 1st respondent also is said to have attended enquiry. Since the then educational agency - Ebenezer did not attend enquiry, according to the Department, it could not proceed and pass orders. Ebenezer did not attend enquiry. One V. Susila, who was also claiming right of school Management, was also called upon to attend enquiry. The 1st respondent also is said to have attended enquiry. Since the then educational agency - Ebenezer did not attend enquiry, according to the Department, it could not proceed and pass orders. According to the Department, the recognised Educational Agency never came forward to renew their appeal for recognition. (viii) W.P.No.424 of 1997:- The 1st respondent was running the School in the same name of Gandhi Vidyalayam Middle School, Perumalpuram at State Bank Colony, Periyakulam. The 1st respondent filed W.P.No.424 of 1997 claiming salary and the same was disposed of by Order dated 2.8.2001 directing the 1st respondent to make representation to the authorities and directing the authorities to hold an enquiry and pass orders. The Secretary, Education Department issued orders in Government letter No.80/B1/2001 School Education dated 17.6.2002 rejecting the claim of 1st respondent for salary. (ix) Challenging the proceedings dated 17.6.2002 rejecting the claim of the 1st respondent for salary, she filed the writ petition in W.P.No.24857 of 2002. In the writ petition, the 1st respondent averred that she has been continuously rendering her services as Headmistress and that she has not been paid salary and she is legally entitled to receive the salary during the period she worked as Headmistress. The Order passed by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and against the established rules and regulations and 2nd respondent has not applied its mind in respect of the Order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.424 of 1997 and other Writ Petitions. According to the 1st respondent, without going into all the orders and Departmental communications, the 2nd respondent passed the order rejecting the claim of 1st respondent for salary. According to the 1st respondent, the order of cancellation of recognition was set aside in W.P.No.2509 of 1991 and the recognition of the school has been restored and therefore the petitioner's continuance in the post of Headmistress is no way against the rules and that the 1st respondent is to be paid salary from 9.6.1989 to 10/1989 and from 6/90 to 31.8.2009. The appellant/Department resisted the writ petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit referring to various proceedings and stating that the 1st respondent has wantonly and wilfully refused to obey the order of redeployment and has been arbitrarily running the school on her own in some other place and thereby violated the Code of Private School teachers enunciated in Annexure II of Rule 16(1) of Tamilnadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974. From the year 2002 onwards, the 1st respondent has been running school with unqualified teachers without recognition and due to the pendency of the writ petition (W.P.No.24857 of 2002) and several rounds of litigations, the Department could not take steps to close down the school. When the first respondent wilfully disobeyed the orders of redeployment, she has no right to claim salary and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Upon consideration of rival contentions, the learned single judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to pay salary to the 1st respondent from June 1990 till the date of her retirement on the following findings:- (i) The first respondent has produced plenty of documents to show that on the orders of educational authorities the original school was shifted to a different place and now School has been running in the new place and there are documents to show that the educational authorities inspected the same and they have also signed the records of the said School, where the 1st respondent was alone working; (ii) On 13.9.1993, the 1st respondent was granted Selection Grade and her salary was also re-fixed in the Selection Grade in the post of Headmistress and on 17.9.1993, entries were also made by Assistant Elementary Educational Officer in her Service Register approving the Selection Grade granted to her; and (iii) School has no direct control of the educational authorities, which has recognition in which the 1st respondent has all along been working and therefore she is entitled for salary from June, 1990. 4. Challenging the Order in W.P.No.24857 of 2002 directing payment of salary to the 1st respondent, Government preferred this appeal. Taking us through various proceedings and Orders, the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. 4. Challenging the Order in W.P.No.24857 of 2002 directing payment of salary to the 1st respondent, Government preferred this appeal. Taking us through various proceedings and Orders, the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan contended that two other teachers of Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School obeyed the orders of redeployment and joined in some other school and only the first respondent wilfully disobeyed the order of redeployment and failed to join Buddar Middle School, Periyakulam. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that even though sufficient opportunity was given to 1st respondent, she has not chosen to join the redeployed school and therefore the 1st respondent has lost the chance of getting salary and the Department cannot be held responsible for the same. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the original order of recognition was in the name of Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School, Perumalpuram and it was granted to Ebenezer to run the school in E.B. Colony, Perumalpuram, Periyakulam and the said recognition cannot be utilised by the 1st respondent for running a school in the same name at some other place viz., State Bank Colony, Periyakulam. According to appellants, the present location, where the 1st respondent is running the School, has no recognition from the competent authority and that the 1st respondent has been running the School in State Bank Colony, Periyakulam by employing unqualified teachers and without basic amenities prescribed by the Education Department and without the approval of Department. As per the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Rules the same cannot be treated as approved school/recognised school and the learned single Judge did not keep in view that the place, where the 1st respondent is running the School, has no approval or recognition. 5. The learned counsel for 1st respondent Mr. R. Subramanian submitted that after allowing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.2509 of 1991, the recognition to the Gandhi Vidyalaya School was restored and all these years school was functioning and periodical inspections were carried out by the Educational Department and as such the 1st respondent is entitled to the salary. The learned counsel further submitted that the School was also designated as Polling Booth for general elections and that on 28.4.2008, Assistant Educational Officer certified that the school is functioning and is recognised. The learned counsel further submitted that the School was also designated as Polling Booth for general elections and that on 28.4.2008, Assistant Educational Officer certified that the school is functioning and is recognised. The learned counsel would also submit that in its order dated 29.11.2009 in W.A.Nos.2233 and 2234 of 1999 Division Bench directed restoration of Noon-meal Scheme after holding that the School is functioning. The learned counsel submitted that when the School has been functioning with an Assistant Educational Officer, Periyakulam as the Secretary and the 1st respondent worked without salary for over a period of 20 years, the learned single judge rightly directed the Educational Department to pay the salary and the order warrants no interference. 6. We have heard the matter at length spread over for two to three days and carefully considered the rival contentions and also various proceedings. We have also called for the original back records in W.P.No.2509 of 1991 and perused the same. 7. Though the matter appears to be a simple case of claiming salary, the first respondent's disobedience of the proceedings of deployment in Na.Ka.No.16110 A2/85 dated 17.9.1990 and running a parallel school on her own without approval, the simple issue has been complicated in the cobweb of litigations. Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School, Perumalpuram, Periyakulam was granted recognition on 17.11.1957 and in the said school, the 1st respondent has been then working as Headmistress. The School was managed by one Ebenezer and the 1st respondent's husband - Raju was financing the school. When Ebenezer transferred the management to Perumal Chettiar, Raju husband of 1st respondent challenged the said transfer of Management of School in O.S.No.215 of 1986. Since Court ordered existing status quo to continue in the said suit, Department could not grant the approval for transfer of Management. 8. By the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.22213 A3/89 dated 18.8.1989, Chief Educational Officer, Madurai assigned the responsibility of the School to Deputy Inspector of Schools, Thenkarai Range and directed payment to the teachers working in the School. When the school was under the control of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Thenkarai Range, School was shifted to a nearby place within the vicinity of Perumalpuram village and started functioning there from 7.10.1989. When the school was under the control of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Thenkarai Range, School was shifted to a nearby place within the vicinity of Perumalpuram village and started functioning there from 7.10.1989. There were differences between the 1st respondent and the villagers and at her instance, number of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is said to have been registered against the villagers, which resulted in serious law and order problems. In view of the law and order problem, the District Educational Officer, Periyakulam passed order directing indefinite closure of the school from 5.6.1990. 9. It is in this situation, in order to provide job security to two teachers of Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School viz., Pasupathi and Rajaram were deployed to other schools and those two teachers joined in the redeployed schools. By separate proceedings in Na.Ka.No.16110 A2/85 dated 17.9.1990, the 1st respondent was deployed to join Buddar Middle School, Periyakulam. The 1st respondent was directed to join in the said school and report compliance. In the said proceedings dated 17.9.1990, the Department categorically stated that the 1st respondent cannot arbitrarily run the School on her own in an unapproved place without any approval. The said proceedings reads as under: “Tamil” After so observing, in the above proceedings, the first respondent was directed to join Buddar Middle School, Periyakulam and to submit a report. 10. By the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.24067/86 dated 7.1.1991, the recognition granted to Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School, Perumalpuram was cancelled. Cancellation of recognition was challenged by Perumal Chettiar in W.P.No.3947 of 1992 and the said writ petition was allowed on 25.9.1995, wherein it was observed as under: "... 1) Writ Petition is Partly allowed 2) Impugned order is set aside. It is open to respondents 1 to 31 if so desired, to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law in regard to the withdrawing or cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner school in the light of the observation made. 3) The claim of the petitioner to recognise as the Manager/ Educational Agency has to be considered by the appropriate authority on he basis of the materials or as can be decided by the civil court." 11. 3) The claim of the petitioner to recognise as the Manager/ Educational Agency has to be considered by the appropriate authority on he basis of the materials or as can be decided by the civil court." 11. By separate proceedings in Na.Ka.No.24067/86 AA3/86 dated 7.1.1991, the 1st respondent was informed that to provide job security, she was deployed to Buddar Middle School, Periyakulam and that inspite of such opportunity, she has not joined the said School and that the 1st respondent is solely responsible for the consequence of her act. The said proceedings reads as under: "... When the school had been closed permanently, in order to offer the job security to the teachers who are about to lose their jobs, the department officers, could only transfer them to another school with the vacancy and on this basis, as per the proceedings referred to 1 herein above, Tmt. C. Vellaiammal was provided with a job in the Buthar Middle School, Periyakulam. In this new job, to accept the job or not is the desire of Tmt. Vellaiammal. In the event that Tmt. C. Vellaiammal not accepting the new job offered to her on the basis of job security, for the loss of job and the other consequences on account of the same the officers could not be held liable and this is strictly informed through this." 12. Challenging the above said proceedings, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.2509 of 1991. The said Writ Petition was disposed of observing as under: "... 2. This Court allowed W.P.No.3947 of 1992 on 25.9.1995 and quashed the impugned order. If that be the position, nothing more required to be done in this writ petition except stating that the impugned order is already quashed. In this view, this writ petition is disposed of as no further order is necessary." 13. The contention of 1st respondent is that in W.P.No.2509 of 1991 she challenged the cancellation of recognition as well as redeployment of 1st respondent to Buddar School, Periyakulam and consequent on the above Order of High Court in W.P.No.2509 of 1991, the recognition of the School was restored and therefore her continuance in the post of Headmistress is no way against the rules. Further contention is that on the order of the High Court in W.P.No.2509 of 1991, the recognition granted to the school was restored and subsequently no specific order was passed by the Education Department cancelling the recognition and therefore there could be no valid objection for first respondent's continuance as Headmistress and salary should be paid to her. 14. For more than one reason, the above contention does not merit acceptance. We have called for the original records in W.P.No.2509 of 1991. It is a matter of record that in W.P.No.2509 of 1991 the first respondent challenged only the proceedings in respect of her deployment to Buddar School, Periyakulam. The 1st respondent produces only the order redeploying her in the writ petition as the "impugned Order". The order cancelling recognition of the school was not at all under challenge in W.P.No.2509 of 1991. Only in W.P.No.3947 of 1992 filed by Perumal Chettiar, the Order of cancellation of recognition was under challenge. With due respect, we are of the view that W.P.No.2509 of 1991 ought not to have been disposed as infructuous in view of the order in W.P.No.3947 of 1992 in which the cancellation of recognition was under challenge. At no point of time, the 1st respondent challenged the order of cancellation of recognition of Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School. The reason being obvious -she was not in managerial or administrative position of Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School, Perumalpuram. 15. As pointed out earlier, in W.P.No.3947 of 1992, withdrawal of recognition has been set aside and the Educational Department was directed to proceed afresh in the matter. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in pursuance to the order in W.P.No.3947 of 1992, Ebenezer was called upon to attend enquiry conducted by the Joint Director of Elementary Education. One Susila, who was also claiming right of school management, was also called upon to attend enquiry. The first respondent also attended the enquiry. Ebenezer did not attend enquiry. One Susila attended enquriy. Since Ebenezer did not attend enquiry the Department could not proceed as per the direction of the High Court and orders in respect of recognition could not be passed. Of course, the proceedings dated 7.1.1991 cancelling the recognition was set aside in W.P.No.3947 of 1992. But after the Order in W.P.No.3947 of 1992, Perumal Chettiar did not attend enquriy. Since Ebenezer did not attend enquiry the Department could not proceed as per the direction of the High Court and orders in respect of recognition could not be passed. Of course, the proceedings dated 7.1.1991 cancelling the recognition was set aside in W.P.No.3947 of 1992. But after the Order in W.P.No.3947 of 1992, Perumal Chettiar did not attend enquriy. In these circumstances, when withdrawal of recognition has been set aside in W.P.No.3947 of 1992, whether it would amount to recognition, being restored, is the moot question. In Paragraph No.6 of the counter filed by the Department in the writ petition, it is stated that Recognised Educational Agency never came forward to renew their appeal for recognition. As pointed out earlier, in W.P.No.2509 of 1991, when the 1st respondent challenged only the order of her deployment to Buddar School and has never challenged the cancellation of recognition, she cannot claim the benefit of the order in W.P.No.3947 of 1992. Assuming that the recognition of the School is in force, it will not enure to the benefit of the 1st respondent, inasmuch as the recognition would enure only to the benefit of the recognised Educational Agency - Ebenezer. It is pertinent to note that the suit -O.S.No.215 of 1986 filed by the 1st respondent's husband on the file of District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam against said Ebenezer came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14.2.1996. 16. The 1st respondent verymuch relies upon the proceedings of the District Education Officer in Ni.Mu.No.22854/B2/91 dated 13.9.1993, in which she was granted selection grade and her salary was re-fixed as a selection grade Headmistress. This proceedings was taken note by the learned single Judge to hold that the 1st respondent was working in the school as Headmistress and that she was awarded selection grade and her salary was also re-fixed for the Selection Grade in the post of Headmistress. The said proceedings dated 13.9.1993 appears to have been passed during the pendency of W.P.No.2509 of 1991, which was disposed of by the order dated 28.6.1996. Awarding of Selection Grade during the pendency of the said writ petition would not enure to the benefit of the 1st respondent nor it would lead to the conclusion that she was working in Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School. 17. The 1st respondent relies upon the circumstance of continuance of Noon-meal scheme. Awarding of Selection Grade during the pendency of the said writ petition would not enure to the benefit of the 1st respondent nor it would lead to the conclusion that she was working in Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School. 17. The 1st respondent relies upon the circumstance of continuance of Noon-meal scheme. In 1991 and 1998 Noon-meal scheme provided to Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School was discontinued and the said proceedings were challenged in W.P.Nos.7159 of 1991 and 8661 of 1998. By the Order dated 6.7.1999 both the writ petitions were dismissed holding that the school, being unrecognised, cannot seek continuance of Noon-meal scheme. The said order dated 6.7.1999 was challenged in W.A.No.2233 and 2234 of 1999. By the Order dated 29.11.1999, holding that the School is functioning, Division Bench directed restoration of Noon-meal scheme. The Order directing continuance of noon-meal scheme is relied upon by the 1st respondent to contend that the school was functioning in the new place. By perusal of judgment dated 29.11.1999, it appears that the said Order regarding benefit of Noon-meal scheme to Gandhi Vidyalayam was passed by recording a finding "...... Admittedly the school has been recognised by the authorities and therefore the children of the school are entitled to the benefit of the Noon Meal Scheme....." The observation that "admittedly the School has been recognised does not reflect the correct facts. The various proceedings regarding cancellation of recognition and series of litigations appears to have been not brought to the notice of the First Bench. The first respondent placed reliance upon yet another circumstance that the School was designated as the polling booth for general elections. The learned counsel for 1st respondent has drawn our attention to Form I - Order of appointment of Presiding and Polling Officer for Gandhi Vidyalayam Elementary School Perumalpyuram. Selection of the School as a polling booth will not lead to the conclusion that the school was a recognised school in the new location. It is a matter of common knowledge that public places like Libraries and other places are also designated as Polling Stations and the order designating the school as a polling station does not in any way advance the case of 1st respondent. 18. The first respondent relies upon number of proceedings and recommendations of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officers. It is a matter of common knowledge that public places like Libraries and other places are also designated as Polling Stations and the order designating the school as a polling station does not in any way advance the case of 1st respondent. 18. The first respondent relies upon number of proceedings and recommendations of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officers. Those proceedings do not seem to have kept in view that the 1st respondent was deployed to Buddar School, Periyakulam and that she has not obeyed the said order. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the chain of litigations, those reports of Assistant Elementary Educational officers relied upon by the 1st respondent are of not much assistance. 19. The Original order of recognition given to Gandhi Vidyalaya Elementary School, Perumalpuram was granted for functioning the school in E.B. Colony, Periyakulam. At present, the 1st respondent is said to be running the school in the same name at State Bank Colony, Periyakulam. Evidently, present location has no recognition from the competent authority and therefore the 1st respondent cannot claim salary. The recognition is in respect of the functioning of school in a particular location after confirming the institutional and infrastructural facilities. The recognition in the name of a particular school cannot be taken forward in respect of another location unless the new location has proper infrastructure and approval by the authorities. 20. According to the appellants, as per Section 18A(3)(b) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act as well as Sections 6 and 11 of the Act and Rules 6 and 11 of the Rules framed therein, the Educational Agency alone has right to claim permission or recognition to run the school and the 1st respondent, being the then Headmistress, has no locus standi. As elaborated earlier, the 1st respondent refused to obey the order of redeployment and established/administered the school on her own in some other place, thereby violated the Code of Conduct of Private School Teachers in Annexure II of Rule 16(1) of Tamilnadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974. 21. The learned single judge did not go into the vital aspect that the 1st respondent was only the Headmistress and that as per Rule Nos.6 and 11 of Tamilnadu Private Schools rules, only the Educational Agency can continue to run the school. 21. The learned single judge did not go into the vital aspect that the 1st respondent was only the Headmistress and that as per Rule Nos.6 and 11 of Tamilnadu Private Schools rules, only the Educational Agency can continue to run the school. When the suit filed by the 1st respondent/husband in O.S.No.215 of 1986 was dismissed, the 1st respondent had no manner of right to continue to run the school, more so, without any recognition. The first respondent cannot claim the benefit of the recognition earlier granted to Gandhi Vidyalaya Elementary School and contend that she was working as Headmistress in the said School and as such is entitled to the salary. We are not able to endorse the views taken by the learned single Judge. The order under challenge in W.P.No.24857 of 2002 is therefore liable to be set aside. 22. In the result, the order passed by the learned single judge dated 17.8.2010 in W.P.No.24857 of 2002 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.