Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge, dated 09.07.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.15824 of 2012. 2. Facts in brief, leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows: 2.1. The fourth respondent school is an aided school, wherein the appellant was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 16.03.1998. The District Educational Officer, Thanjavur, found that two posts of Secondary Grade Teachers were in surplus in the fourth respondent school during the academic year 2005-2006 and hence, the District Elementary Educational Officer, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8225/A3/2005 dated 20.03.2006, issued an order redeploying the appellant along with the post at the Aided Primary School at Nagarasampettai. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3433 of 2006 and this Court granted interim stay, observing that when the juniors appointed in 2002 have been retained, the appellant who was appointed earlier, had been redeployed. In view of the said interim order, the appellant was allowed to continue to work in the same school. Subsequently, this Court, by order dated 30.04.2010, modified the earlier order, by directing the authorities to consider the claim of the appellant to retain her in the same school by placing the appellant in the vacant post within a period of three weeks therefrom. 2.2. Later, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, by his Proceedings dated 29.06.2010, issued a consequential order directing the school to retain the appellant as against the vacancy which had arisen subsequently and also directed to surrender the redeployed post to the Director, which was only due to the interim order passed by this Court on 30.04.2010. However, this Court by order dated 21.11.2012, dismissed the said writ petition, consequent to which, the fourth respondent had relieved the appellant from the school by his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.72 dated 30.11.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the writ petition. 2.3. Whereas it was the stand of the fourth respondent that having allowed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3433 of 2006 to be dismissed by making a representation that the said writ petition had become infructuous in view of the order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 29.06.2010, the appellant could not seek any remedy. 2.3. Whereas it was the stand of the fourth respondent that having allowed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3433 of 2006 to be dismissed by making a representation that the said writ petition had become infructuous in view of the order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 29.06.2010, the appellant could not seek any remedy. But, the said contention was denied by the appellant stating that this Court found that the writ petition had become infructuous and dismissed the writ petition. Moreover, the post against which the appellant was earlier working had been surrendered to the Director by virtue of the order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, dated 29.06.2010 and therefore, there was no vacancy available. 2.4. It was contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions from the District Elementary Educational Officer, that the appellant would be permitted to join as Secondary Grade Teacher in any other Aided School in and around Kumbakonam. 2.5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the third respondent on 20.03.2006, is non-est in the eye of law in view of the subsequent order passed by him on 29.06.2010 and that the learned Judge had not decided as to whether the relieving order is sustainable or not. He further put forth his contention that the learned Judge had not gone into the aspects relating to the declaration of the post as surplus as the so-called surplus post is not due to the retirement of a Teacher, but for want of strength of the students. Accordingly, he sought to interfere with the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 4. On the contrary, Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that since the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3433 of 2006 was dismissed by this Court based on the submission of the appellant that the writ petition had become infructuous in view of the order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 29.06.2010, the post against which the appellant was working was surrendered to the Director as per the order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, dated 29.06.2010 and consequently, no vacancy of the post is available. He also contended that the learned Judge had considered the issue in detail and rejected the writ petition, warranting no interference at the hands of this Court. 5. Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, submitted that the appellant would be permitted to join as Secondary Grade Teacher in any other Aided School in and around Kumbakonam. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and scrutinised the materials available on record, including the order of the learned Judge of this Court. 7. It is seen that the appellant was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school with effect from 16.03.1998. The District Educational Officer, Thanjavur, taking into account the strength of the students in the school, during the academic year 20052006, found that two posts of Secondary Grade Teachers were in surplus in the fourth respondent school. Thereafter, the District Elementary Educational Officer, by his order in Na.Ka.No.8225/A3/2005 dated 20.03.2006, redeployed the appellant along with the post at the Aided Primary School at Nagarasampettai. The same was challenged in W.P.(MD)No.3433 of 2006 on the premise that appellant was not a junior so as to be redeployed. Considering the same, an order of interim stay was granted and by virtue of the said interim order, the appellant was allowed to continue to work in the same school. Subsequently, the interim order granted earlier had stood modified by order dated 30.04.2010, directing the authorities to consider the claim of the appellant to retain her in the same school by placing the appellant in the said vacant post within a period stipulated therein. 8. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, by his order dated 29.06.2010, directed the school to retain the appellant as against the vacancy which had arisen later and further to surrender the redeployed post to the Director, which was only because of the interim order passed by this Court on 30.04.2010. However, the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3433 of 2006 was dismissed by this Court on 21.11.2012, observing that the writ petition had become infructuous in view of the order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur dated 29.06.2010. In view of the same, the fourth respondent had relieved the appellant from the school by his proceedings dated 30.11.2012, which is impugned in the present writ appeal. 9. In view of the same, the fourth respondent had relieved the appellant from the school by his proceedings dated 30.11.2012, which is impugned in the present writ appeal. 9. No doubt, the learned Judge of this Court had gone into all aspects of the issue and held that since the order of the District Elementary Educational Officer was only an interim arrangement on account of the interim order passed by this Court, the same should come to an end on the dismissal of the writ petition and on such dismissal, the original redeployment order, dated 20.03.2006, should be implemented which, was ultimately upheld by the learned Judge. 10. Admittedly, the appellant had not challenged the order of dismissal passed, in W.P(MD) No.3433 of 2006. When that being the factual position, it is for the appellant to work out her remedy, as per law. However, without doing so, she has attempted to achieve what she had lost in the earlier round of litigation, before us. 11. We find that the learned Judge had rightly held that even though the appellant had been allowed to work in the same school, earlier, on the strength of the interim order of this Court, the same could not be continued for all along and the appellant had to comply with the earlier order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur. It could be seen from the order of the learned Judge that the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted on instructions that the appellant would be allowed to join duty as Secondary Grade Teacher in any other school in and around Kumbakonam, which was also placed on record. While recording the same, the learned Judge also directed the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, to pass orders, within a period of seven days to enable the appellant to report for duty. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Judge had dealt with the issue on proper perspective and arrived at a conclusion to direct the authority concerned to pass orders in order to facilitate the appellant to report for duty. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court. 13. In fine, the writ appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.