Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a Private Aided Higher Secondary School. In that school, at the level of +1 & +2 standards, there was also vocational stream subjects taught. One of the vocational subjects taught was Commerce and Accountancy. This course was commenced in the year 1984. There were two Post Graduate Assistants in the subject Commerce, in respect of this course in the said school, which was sanctioned duly by the Education Department. One such Post Graduate Assistant was Mr.Rangesan. Mr.Rangesan was dismissed from service in the year 1995 and that was challenged by him before this Court by way of writ petition. That writ petition was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated into service. Accordingly, in the year 2004, he was reinstated into service. As regards the other sanctioned post, one Mr.Selvaraj was working as Commerce Teacher. Thus in the academic year 2004-2005, there were two teachers as Post Graduate Assistants in Commerce in the school of the petitioner. The Educational Authorities found, on going by the students' strength, that one Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce was surplus. Accordingly, a Staff Fixation Order was passed. Therefore, Mr.Selvaraj was redeployed to a different school in Kanyakumari District and that order was also challenged again by Mr.Selvaraj and Management before this Court. That writ petition was allowed by this Court and the order of redeployment was set aside with a further direction to the Educational Authorities to reconsider the objections of the petitioner. Accordingly, the objections were considered and finally the Chief Educational Officer, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/4252/2008 dated 11.09.2008 rejected the objections in respect of redeployment. That order is challenged in this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully. 3. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that after the termination of Mr.Rangesan, for want of students, the vocational course in Commerce and Accountancy was closed. The said course was not conducted from 1997-1998 onwards. After Mr.Rangesan was reinstated into service, a proposal was submitted to the Director of School Education seeking sanction for restarting the said course namely the vocational course in Commerce and Accountancy. The said course was not conducted from 1997-1998 onwards. After Mr.Rangesan was reinstated into service, a proposal was submitted to the Director of School Education seeking sanction for restarting the said course namely the vocational course in Commerce and Accountancy. The Director of School Education by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.13436/W4/W12/2004 dated 03.12.2004, while granting sanction for one group namely Group-II (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) he did not give any fresh sanction for the vocational course in Commerce and Accountancy. In the said order, the Director of School Education had stated that in respect of the courses, which were already under progress, as per the Government Letter No.46, dated 14.05.2004, no fresh sanction need be issued by the Education Department. Relying on the same, the learned counsel would submit that since the said course, was not, though conducted from the year 1997-1998, the post was not surrendered. Thus, according to him, the post sanctioned continued to be in existence. Though the post was not filled up, in 2004, since Mr.Rangesan has to be reinstated in service, believing that fresh sanction was required, a proposal was submitted to the Director of School Education, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted. Since the Director of School Education expressed that fresh sanction is not required for the said course, according to the learned counsel, the post is deemed to continue and accordingly, the same should not be redeployed. The learned counsel would further submit that subsequently in the Staff Fixation Order also, the said post has been mentioned as an aided post. Thus, according to the petitioner, the impugned order, wherein, the objection regarding redeployment has been obtained on the ground that the post is not the sanctioned post, but it is only the self-financing post, is not correct. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader would vehemently oppose this writ petition. According to him, from the year 1997-1998, the vocational course in Commerce and Accountancy was not conducted and it was abandoned. The post was not actually surrendered, because, there was no occasion, since Mr.Rangesan was under the orders of dismissal. Thus, according to the learned counsel, once the course was abandoned, the post automatically lapsed. In 2004, after Mr.Rangesan was reinstated, a proposal was submitted, for starting the said course and for sanctioning of the said course. The post was not actually surrendered, because, there was no occasion, since Mr.Rangesan was under the orders of dismissal. Thus, according to the learned counsel, once the course was abandoned, the post automatically lapsed. In 2004, after Mr.Rangesan was reinstated, a proposal was submitted, for starting the said course and for sanctioning of the said course. The Director of School Education only said that the course which was in vogue to continue, it requires no sanction. The learned counsel further submitted that sofar as the post in question, since the course was abandoned in the year 1997-1998, the post was also lapsed in the year 1997-1998. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that from the year 2004, as against the said post, salary was not paid by the Government at all. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the post is only a self-financing post and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the above submissions very carefully and I have also gone through the records. 6. Admittedly, during the academic year 1997-98, the vocational course in Commerce and Accountancy was abandoned by the petitioner school. Though technically, the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce relating to the said course was not surrendered, it should be deemed that the post also lapsed. Had the post been held by any other teacher in the year 1997-98, certainly the Education Department would have redeployed him to some other school. Since Mr.Rangesan was already dismissed, there was no occasion for the Education Department to pass a fresh order of redeploying the said post. In the above said peculiar circumstances, I have to necessarily hold that from the year 1997-1998 onwards, the said post got lapsed. 7. In the year 2004, when Mr.Rangesan was reinstated and the classes were again started, the petitioner school ought to have obtained fresh sanction of Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce to teach classes for the said students. The Management has rightly submitted a proposal for sanction to the Director of School Education for the said purpose. But the Director of School Education did not pass any positive order, in stead the Director of School Education stated that in respect of the said post, which was in vogue in the year 2004, no fresh sanction need be issued. The Management has rightly submitted a proposal for sanction to the Director of School Education for the said purpose. But the Director of School Education did not pass any positive order, in stead the Director of School Education stated that in respect of the said post, which was in vogue in the year 2004, no fresh sanction need be issued. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce was not in force in the year 2004, since the said post lapsed in the year 1997-1998. Therefore, the said order of the Director of School Education dated 03.12.2004 cannot be stated to be an order granting sanction for the said post of Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce. 8. Subsequently, after reinstatement of Mr.Rangesan, including him, there were two Post Graduate Assistants in Commerce. Mr.Selvaraj, junior most man was redeployed to a different school in Kanyakumari District. Of course, the said order was challenged before this court and this Court has set aside the said order with a direction to consider the objection made by the petitioner and that was considered and the impugned order was passed and in the impugned order, the Chief Educational Officer has categorically stated that after the restarting of the course in the year 2004-2005, the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce was neither revived nor fresh sanction was obtained. The post was treated only as self-financed post all through. Salary was all along paid only by the Management. In view of the same, in my considered opinion, when there was no positive order sanctioning the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce, the impugned order cannot be found fault with at all. 9. Hence, I do not find any merit at all in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.