JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in W.P.No. 22947 of 2010 seeks issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner and his brother namely Thiru. K. Thirumaran, 4th Respondent as Education Agency of Kalaivani Aided Elementary School and approve them as Secretary on rotational basis for every three years and revoke the order of direct payment passed by the second respondent by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7550/A3/2006 dated 28.12.2006 on the basis of the representation dated 03.07.2010. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 16063 of 2011 seeks issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 8.12.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to accept the School Committee Resolution dated 13.12.2007, appoint the petitioner herein, as a Secretary cum Manager as per the School Committee and to cancel the direct payment. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No. 22947 of 2010 and the petitioner in W.P.No. 16063 of 2011 are brothers. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are mentioned as arrayed in W.P.No. 22947 of 2010. 4. It is seen from the facts narrated in the affidavit that Kalaivani Aided Elementary School was started in the name of Benefit Fund Aided Elementary School at Gudiyatham with noble object to cater the need of education to the poor and downtrodden people in and around the area. The school was given permanent recognition by the educational authorities and it is fully aided by the Government and governed by the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act. It is stated that after the death of petitioner’s father R. Krishnan on 13.12.2001, D. Rajammal, mother of the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the School and the same was approved by the second respondent by proceedings dated 7.2.2002. The petitioner was nominated as Member of the School Committee and also in the Educational Agency. The petitioner’s mother was died on 12.12.2006. After the death of mother, dispute arose between the petitioner and his brother/fourth respondent as regards the management of the school. This resulted in ordering of direct payment of salary to the teachers by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, on 31.3.2008, the School Committee passed resolution and appointed the petitioner as Secretary of the School Committee and proposal for approval of his appointment as Secretaryship was submitted to the second respondent. This resulted in ordering of direct payment of salary to the teachers by the second respondent. According to the petitioner, on 31.3.2008, the School Committee passed resolution and appointed the petitioner as Secretary of the School Committee and proposal for approval of his appointment as Secretaryship was submitted to the second respondent. The fourth respondent objected to the said proposal by stating that as the petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, he was not entitled for Educational Agency and Secretaryship. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no bar for a teacher working in the private school to be appointed as Educational Agency or Secretary of the School as per Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Act. Considering the objection made by the fourth respondent and after the order passed in W.P.No. 803 of 2010 dated 28.4.2010, directing the respondents to conduct an enquiry, the third respondent conducted an enquiry on 28.6.2010. In that enquiry, the petitioner submitted the copy of the resolution of the school committee and proposal requesting to approve his appointment as Secretary of the School Committee. In the background of the said facts, the petitioner and the fourth respondent have filed their respective writ petitions with the above stated prayers. 5. The prime objection of the fourth respondent is that as the petitioner has already working as a teacher in the school, he is not entitled to be recognized as a Secretary of the School Committee. The said contention is countered by learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decision reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 943 – Sri. Krishnasami Middle School v. Dist. Elementary Edul. Officer as well as unreported decision of this Court in the case of Bharathidasan Aided Primary School v. The Director of Elementary Education and Others in W.P.(MD).No. 9538 of 2010 dated 1.10.2010, wherein similar question was raised before this Court. In the decision reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 943 – Sri. Krishnasami Middle School v. Dist. Elementary Edul. Officer referring to Section 13(1) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that there is no legal prohibition for a person who is the sole member of an Educational Agency, to act also as the Secretary of the School Committee. Krishnasami Middle School v. Dist. Elementary Edul. Officer referring to Section 13(1) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that there is no legal prohibition for a person who is the sole member of an Educational Agency, to act also as the Secretary of the School Committee. Further, there is no disqualification for one person holding more than one post under Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules. In the background of the above, there could be no legal impediment on the part of the second respondent in passing the order of recognizing the petitioner as Secretary of the School Committee and Educational Agency. 6. Considering the objection raised by the fourth respondent this Court suggested the parties to go for mediation. However, the mediation failed. Even while hearing the case, considering the relationship between the parties, this Court suggested to the parties to act as term Secretary i.e. once in three years. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent however expressed his inability to file a memo accepting the proposal, but however, left the issue at the hands of the court to decide the same. 7. As already noted in the preceding paragraphs, in the decision reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 943 – Sri. Krishnasami Middle School v. Dist. Elementary Edul. Officer this Court pointed out that, “A perusal of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act shows there is no disqualification for one person holding more than one post. In fact, by inheritance he came to be the owner of the school, as such there is no bar in such a person being the owner of the school. His appointment of teacher was also approved by the Department of School Education.” 8. Referring to Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu recognized Private School (Regulation) Rules, this Court observed that, “By relying upon Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private schools (Regulation) Rules where there is only a provision for the educational agency to nominate the Headmaster as the Secretary of the school and hence the said petitioner cannot be nominated as the Secretary of the school committee. In fact the provision enables the Head Master also to be nominated as a Secretary at the instance of an Educational Agency. In fact the provision enables the Head Master also to be nominated as a Secretary at the instance of an Educational Agency. But Rule 13(1) of the Rules clearly states that the Educational Agency “shall nominate one of the member of the committee as Secretary of the School Committee.” The said person is also working as a teacher in same school is not relevant in deciding the issue”. 9. In the background of the decision referred to above and in view of the similar observation made by this Court in unreported decision in the case of Bharathidasan Aided Primary School v. The Director of Elementary Education and others in W.P. (MD).No. 9538 of 2010, I do not find that there could be legally sustainable objection taken by the fourth respondent that a person working as a teacher is inhibited from holding the post of Secretary. 10. As far as the present case is concerned, the writ petitioner himself has come with a proposition that the fourth respondent may also be given a chance to act as a turn Secretary. Going by the decision referred to above, this Court directs the respondents 1 to 3 herein to pass an order to the effect of making the petitioner and his brother, fourth respondent, to act as Secretary of the Educational Agency of the Kalaivani Aided Elementary School on rotational basis once in every three years. As far as the prayer in respect of direct payment ordered by the second respondent is concerned, I do not find any justifiable ground to cancel the said order and the direct payment shall continue. 11. As far as the claim in W.P.No. 16063 of 2011 made by the fourth respondent is concerned, after the death of petitioner’s mother, the resolution had been passed on 13.12.2007 recognising the fourth respondent as a Secretary. The objection raised by the fourth respondent is not different from what has been stated in the counter filed by him in W.P.No. 22947 of 2010. Considering the order passed in W.P.No. 22947 of 2010, I do not find any ground to accept the plea of the fourth respondent. 12. Further, learned counsel for the fourth respondent referred to the decision rendered in O.S.No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District dated 29.2.2012. It was a partition suit filed by the petitioner. 12. Further, learned counsel for the fourth respondent referred to the decision rendered in O.S.No. 12 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District dated 29.2.2012. It was a partition suit filed by the petitioner. A preliminary decree was passed by dividing the suit properties into two equal shares. A reading of the judgment shows that other than the school property, all other properties was considered for partition. The plaintiff in the suit stated that separate proceedings would be taken as regards the management of the school. In the schedule annexed to the suit, there is no reference about the school property. Even though learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the school property is included in the suit properties through an amendment petition, I do not find any material to support this contention. Thus, going by the judgment in O.S.No. 12 of 2011, I do not find any justifiable ground to accept the plea of the fourth respondent. 13. In the circumstances, while granting partial relief in W.P.No. 22947 of 2010 in respect of making the petitioner and his brother, fourth respondent, to act as a Secretary of the Educational Agency of the Kalaivani Aided Elementary School on rotational basis once in every three years, the prayer in respect of direct payment stands dismissed. The prayer in W.P.No. 16063 of 2011 also stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.