JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner had obtained B.Com. Degree in the year 1988 and after that, he had also completed Physical Education Teacher (Higher Grade) in the year 1989. After possessing such qualifications, he was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 04.11.1992 in the fourth respondent School. Thereafter, while working as Physical Education Teacher, he had obtained M.Com. Degree from Annamalai University and subsequent to that, he had also obtained B.Ed. Degree in the year 1998. 2. By narrating the above said facts, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner should have been considered for the post of PG Assistant in the fourth respondent School, since she had joined in the said school as Physical Education Teacher and she has been continuously working in the said school for about 17 years. Therefore, when a vacancy arose on 03.01.2008, the fourth respondent ought to have considered the petitioner as the only qualified and eligible teacher, whereas they have wrongly appointed sixth respondent, only for a reason that sixth respondent is nephew of fifth respondent. Moreover, fifth respondent was working only as a Junior Assistant, a non-teaching post, and he acquired B.Com. Degree in the year 1986 and thereafter, he completed the B.Ed. Degree only in the year 2007 from Indira Gandhi National Open University. It is also contended that the sixth respondent suppressed the fact that he was a non-teaching staff, therefore, he should not have been considered as an eligible candidate on the date of selection held on 24.02.2009. 3. Further, it was contended that when Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, contemplates that for the post of PG Assistant, one should have obtained B.Ed. or B.T. or its equivalent, the petitioner being meritorious candidate than sixth respondent on the date of selection held on 24.02.2009, with 17 years of experience, the fifth respondent ought not to have selected the sixth respondent ignoring the qualification possessed by the petitioner. By contending so, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 4. Opposing the said relief, learned Senior counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that on the date when the petitioner and sixth respondent were called for interview to the post of PG Assistant in the fifth respondent School, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, sixth respondent possessed requisite educational qualifications as contemplated under Rule 15(4). 4. Opposing the said relief, learned Senior counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that on the date when the petitioner and sixth respondent were called for interview to the post of PG Assistant in the fifth respondent School, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, sixth respondent possessed requisite educational qualifications as contemplated under Rule 15(4). Moreover, the Selection Committee, after considering the fact that the petitioner was only a Physical Education Teacher and not taking classes in the academic subjects, thought fit to consider the merit and ability possessed by the sixth respondent, who was admittedly working as Graduate Teacher (Tamil), which is a feeder category for the post of PG Assistant. He has also produced a chart with regard to the qualification and other particulars between the petitioner and the sixth respondent, which is reproduced hereudner: Qualification Petitioner Sixth respondent SSLC 307/500 409/500 '+2 794/1200 990/1200 B.Com III Class I Class M.Com II Class II Class B.Ed. III Class I Class with distinction Specialization P.E.T Certificate Course C.A. Course 3 Years and B.A. (Tamil) Written Test on 24.02.2009 98/200 161/200 By narrating the above said chart to compare with the petitioner and the sixth respondent, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel that the Selection committee has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the validity of the selection process done by the fourth respondent School. Again, the petitioner till date has not even challenged the acquisition of B.Ed. Degree by the sixth respondent. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioner to make any claim on the ground that the sixth respondent has wrongly acquired B.Ed. Degree. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since there is no claim against these respondents, the matter has to be decided only between the petitioner and the fourth respondent-School. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is no doubt true that, in the fourth respondent School, the petitioner has been working as Physical Education Teacher, whereas the sixth respondent has been working as Graduate Teacher (Tamil), which is a feeder category for the post of PG Assistant. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is no doubt true that, in the fourth respondent School, the petitioner has been working as Physical Education Teacher, whereas the sixth respondent has been working as Graduate Teacher (Tamil), which is a feeder category for the post of PG Assistant. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has scored lesser marks than the sixth respondent in the written test and oral interview conducted on 22.04.2009. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 15(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which is extracted hereunder: Rule 15(4)(i):-- Promotion shall be made on the grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. 8. From the Chart produced by the learned Senior counsel for fifth respondent, indicating the comparative merit and ability between the petitioner and the sixth respondent, it is seen that the sixth respondent has scored more marks than the petitioner and it is also pertinent to note that even today, the petitioner is working as Physical Education Teacher, whereas, the sixth respondent is working as Graduate Teacher (Tamil). Therefore, the fifth respondent School, by taking into account the overall performances of both the petitioner and the sixth respondent as well as the inter-se merit and ability among the candidates as prescribed in the above said Rule, appointed the latter as Post-Graduate Teacher (Commerce) on 25.02.2009. Thus, in the given situation, the petitioner cannot claim or make any complaint over the selection of sixth respondent to the post in question. 9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection of sixth respondent as Post-Graduate Teacher (Commerce) at this belated stage. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it stands dismissed. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.