Judgment : 1. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner submits that the fourth respondent school St.Patrick's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, is administered by the first respondent / Department of School Education and is governed by the Board of Regulations framed for Anglo-Indian Schools, Tamil Nadu. The fourth respondent is imparting education not only to Anglo-Indian children but also to children of other religions. There are nearly 1200 students and about 40 teaching staff. The fourth respondent School is receiving grant in aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu. As per the Code of regulations for Anglo-Indian Schools, every school shall be provided with staff and pupil's libraries of suitable books, properly cataloged. 2. The petitioner additionally added that there were nearly 5000 books in the fourth respondent school. The fourth respondent called for suitable candidates for appointment as a librarian in their school during June 2005 as the then existing librarian retired from their services. The petitioner made an application to the fourth respondent's School for the said librarian post, she is a Post Graduate having obtained the degree of M.A., M.L.I.S., and M.Phil in Library Science from recognized Universities, namely the University of Madras and also Annamalai University. On verifying her qualifications the fourth respondent appointed her as a Librarian by their letter dated 03.06.2005 on probation for a period of one year. All her certificates in originals starting from her school education till Post Graduation were submitted to the fourth respondent's school along with her application for the post and they are still in the custody of the fourth respondent. On satisfactory completion of the probation period, her services were extended by the fourth respondent for a period of one more academic year upto 30.04.2007 by their letter dated 30.03.2006, the said period was further extended for a period of one year by the fourth respondent vide their letter dated 23.04.2007 upto 30.04.2008 and further by letter dated 18.04.2008 upto 30.04.2009. As such her appointment as librarian was extended from time to time and is in force upto 30.04.2009. The extensions were granted after seeing her unblemished services and with a view to give credit. At the time of issuing the letter dated 18.04.2008, she requested the fourth respondent to make her services permanent since she had already completed three years of unblemished service. The extensions were granted after seeing her unblemished services and with a view to give credit. At the time of issuing the letter dated 18.04.2008, she requested the fourth respondent to make her services permanent since she had already completed three years of unblemished service. The fourth respondent did not adhere to her request and expressed that the librarian post is not an aided post though the school is receiving grant in aid from the Government. In spite of her requests regarding the grant received by them for their staff, the fourth respondent refused to divulge any information. Her brother working as a Reader in the Department of Statistics, Loyola College, Chennai and she made a representation to the Public Information Officer / District Educational Officer by letter dated 04.07.2008 seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 specifically with regard to the post of librarian in the fourth respondent's school. The second respondent belatedly sent a reply collecting information from the third respondent. The third respondent had collected the entire information supplied by them on instructions from the fourth respondent's school. A perusal of the said information annexure would disclose as to how the information furnished by them are irrelevant and inconsistent, since the information furnished by the respondents 2 to 4 are not satisfactory, a further representation was made to the State Information Commissioner by letter dated 01.09.2008. This information has been sought on their behalf but sought as a matter of general information. 3. The petitioner additionally stated that the fourth respondent was annoyed at the information sought for by her brother, as a result of which the fourth respondent decided to terminate her services one way or the other and hence demanded production of her original certificates relating to her qualifications, such as X School Certificate and Higher Secondary Certificate. She was terribly shocked to hear the demand made by the fourth respondent and brought to their notice that the same were already furnished to them at the time of joining the services. She gave a detailed reply on 26.09.2008, setting out as to how the demand made by the fourth respondent is improper and further requesting them to take steps to trace her certificates. The fourth respondent by their letter dated 15.10.2008, sought for proof from her for having furnished the original certificates. She gave a detailed reply on 26.09.2008, setting out as to how the demand made by the fourth respondent is improper and further requesting them to take steps to trace her certificates. The fourth respondent by their letter dated 15.10.2008, sought for proof from her for having furnished the original certificates. On the same day i.e., 15.10.2008, a memo was issued seeking explanation to the charge of alleged insubordination. She sent her reply on 16.10.2008 as to how the memo is tainted with malafides and further informing that the said memo has been issued to cover up the lapses on the part of the fourth respondent. It may be pertinent to point out that the fourth respondent school is managed by a single Correspondent and the Headmaster incharge and hence the reply dated 16.10.2008 was addressed to the Headmaster incharge. A reply was sent by the fourth respondent on 20.10.2008 stating that the memo was issued by the Correspondent and not by the Headmaster incharge and therefore the reply cannot be accepted. Subsequently, the same reply dated 16.10.2008 was addressed to the Correspondent and no further action was taken by the fourth respondent on the basis of the said memo dated 15.10.2008. 4. The petitioner additionally submitted that while the matter should thus, with malafide intention of terminating her services on one pretext or the other, the fourth respondent sent a letter of termination dated 06.11.2008, which was received by her on 11.11.2008, pursuant to an alleged resolution of the government body of the school. The main charge in the said letter of termination is that on 05.11.2008, after signing the attendance register, she had abandoned the work and left the school without information to the school authorities and without obtaining any permission to go out. The said letter further states that her services were not satisfactory and that she was told to improve at the time of granting extension, which statement is totally false. Though her appointment is for the post of librarian, she had also been teaching moral science subject and acted as an Invigilator for big tests conducted by the students of X and XII Standards. The letter further directs her to handover the charge to the Correspondent immediately. None of the allegations levelled against her in the said letter of termination dated 06.11.2008 is true. The letter further directs her to handover the charge to the Correspondent immediately. None of the allegations levelled against her in the said letter of termination dated 06.11.2008 is true. As already submitted to the fourth respondent her certificates are either been misplaced or lost with a view to eliminate her from the school by finding one reason or the other. On 05.11.2008, after signing the attendance register, the Headmaster, in charge of the fourth respondent's school physically prevented her from taking the keys of the library from where they are kept usually. She was prevented from discharging her duties and she was asked to get out of the school with her children, who are studying in Standard II and V. 5. The petitioner additionally added that the Headmaster, in charge of the fourth respondent's school had induced the watchman to see that she leaves the school immediately and accordingly she was compelled to leave the school on the same day. She was terribly perturbed at the way in which she was treated by the fourth respondent, she decided to take two days leave and accordingly sent a SMS through her mobile phone to the Headmaster, in charge of the fourth respondent school as that was the usual practice for taking leave. Suppressing all these facts, the letter of termination dated 06.11.2008 was sent to her enclosing a cheque for Rs.9,200/-purporting to be two months wages as notice pay. She submits that the entire action of the fourth respondent being illegal, improper, arbitrary, tainted with malafides and also in violation of the principles of natural Justice. Hence, she was constrained to approach this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.26969 of 2008 challenging the said Termination order. This Court by order dated 13.11.2008 was pleased to admit the said writ petition and granted stay of the Termination order. The said order was sent by courier to the fourth respondent on 15.11.2008 and he evaded to receive the same stating that the school is closed on that day being a Saturday. She produced a copy in person to the correspondent of the fourth respondent's school on 17.11.2008 and after much deliberations and making her wait for a couple of hours, directed her to proceed to the library in a haughty temper. She produced a copy in person to the correspondent of the fourth respondent's school on 17.11.2008 and after much deliberations and making her wait for a couple of hours, directed her to proceed to the library in a haughty temper. Subsequently the fourth respondent moved a petition for vacating the stay and the said petition came up for hearing on 02.12.2008. After hearing the arguments, this court observed that the termination cannot be sustained since no notice was given to her and that the termination is totally in violation of principles of natural justice. The fourth respondent School sought for adjournment and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 10.12.2008. On 03.12.2008, the fourth respondent School sent a letter on the purported authorization of the governing body, withdrawing the letter of Termination dated 06.11.2008. The said letter further states that the Governing Body unanimously decided to withdraw the termination with immediate effect. Subsequently the writ petition came up for hearing on 16.12.2008 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent's School furnished a copy of the letter dated 03.12.2008, whereby the Termination letter was withdrawn by them. Subsequently, this Court recording the said letter dated 03.12.2008, dismissed her writ petition as infructuous. The fourth respondent sent a letter on the basis of an alleged resolution of the governing body dated 16.12.2008, terminating her from the services of librarian with effect from the forenoon of 18.12.2008. The said letter also enclosed a cheque for Rs.13,800/-being the salary for three months. In the said letter, the fourth respondent claims to have been authorized by the governing body to communicate the resolutions. The fourth respondent also sent a letter dated 17.12.2008 along with a cheque for Rs.2,607/- being the salary for the number of days worked. A Telegram was sent by the fourth respondent informing her that her services were terminated with effect from the afternoon of 18.12.2008. 6. The petitioner additionally added that though the letters are sent stating that it is the decision of the governing body, it is very clear that everything is being done only by the correspondent of the fourth respondent, who has been inimically disposed towards her. The correspondent of the fourth respondent had been acting malafidely, hastily and vindictively against a woman causing harassment to her. The correspondent of the fourth respondent had been acting malafidely, hastily and vindictively against a woman causing harassment to her. The correspondent of the fourth respondent school has been taking shelter under the governing body to act as per his whims and fancies. Article 41 of the Code of Regulations for Anglo Indian Schools, Tamil Nadu mandated that every School shall be provided with staff and pupils libraries of suitable books, properly cataloged. Though she was appointed as a Librarian on 03.06.2005, she was also asked to take classes on moral science for X Standard students and also act as an invigilator during times of major school tests. The Appendix 48 of Code of Regulations for Anglo Indian Schools in Tamil Nadu sets out the form of Agreement to be adopted by all Aided Managements and clause two sets out the manner of appointment of staff on probation. A perusal of the said clause will reveal that the probationary period cannot exceed for more that 24 months in all, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Clause VII of Appendix 48, it is mandatory that the school authorities shall not terminate the services of the teacher summarily or otherwise without informing the said teacher in writing of the grounds on which they intend to take action and giving the teacher as to what in their view is a reasonable opportunity for stating her case in writing and before arriving at a final decision, shall duly consider the statement of the teacher and also give her a personal hearing. None of these procedures have been followed by the fourth respondent and as already submitted, with the intention of eliminating her from their services, the fourth respondent sent a letter terminating her services, alleging that she is on probation and that she is only a librarian. Her appointment could be considered as a replacement for the previous librarian who retired from the 4threspondent Institution. However, the letter of termination enclosed a cheque in lieu of three months salary as payable to a permanent staff which itself explains that she is a permanent staff. Even assuming that the said rule will not apply to her case, she is entitled to be in service till 30.04.2009. However, the letter of termination enclosed a cheque in lieu of three months salary as payable to a permanent staff which itself explains that she is a permanent staff. Even assuming that the said rule will not apply to her case, she is entitled to be in service till 30.04.2009. Further the regulations provides for termination of services after notice and also giving an opportunity to the concerned with the three months or three months salary in lieu thereof but with the approval of the Inspectress of Anglo Indian Schools. However, the fourth respondent had sent the letter which is clearly illegal and improper, hence the above writ petition has been filed for quashing the termination order. 7. The fourth respondent has filed a written submission which are as follows: It is submitted that there are totally 42 Anglo Indian Schools in the State and nine schools are the schools administered by Railways and called as Railway Mixed Schools. It is submitted that the Anglo Indian Schools in the State are for the benefit of Anglo Indian community whose mother tongue is either English or any other European language as defined under Regulation 2 of the Code of Regulations for Anglo Indian Schools – Tamil Nadu state, herein after referred to as the Code for the sake of brevity. The Anglo Indian community follows the religion of Christianity and hence the fourth respondent school is both a religious and linguistic minority institution and has the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. All the Anglo Indian schools and the educational agencies running these schools, including fourth respondent school are non profit organizations, involved in educational service throughout the country. It is part of the contribution of fourth respondent minority community for the cause of nation building and realization of the Constitutional goals. 8. It is submitted that modern English education in Indian was first introduced by the Anglo Indian Schools only. Other institutions only followed them, but the quality of fourth respondent's school is unmatched. Fourth respondent school has been established over 100 years ago. Fourth respondent school is a well equipped one in terms of infrastructure as well as the quality of education with well trained and well equipped staff. Other institutions only followed them, but the quality of fourth respondent's school is unmatched. Fourth respondent school has been established over 100 years ago. Fourth respondent school is a well equipped one in terms of infrastructure as well as the quality of education with well trained and well equipped staff. The school has a sprawling land running into several acres of land and fourth respondent's school excels in sports and games as they have a well maintained play ground for sports and games and other events. The school managements hire external specialist coaches for cricket, foot ball, basket ball and volley ball and other sports and games. These coaches are paid by the management and no grant is paid for the same by the State. Free boarding is given to poor Anglo Indian Students and other orphans or children from poor families and fee concessions are given to poor students. 9. It is submitted that under the code, the Anglo Indian Schools are administered by the Department of School Education and the Director of School Education, the second respondent is vested with enormous powers to interfere with the administration of the Anglo Indian Schools originally under the Code which was a pre-independence one. But after the 26thJanuary, 1950, after the Constitution of India coming into force, the fourth respondent has been conferred with administrative rights over the schools under Article 30. After the Tamil Nadu Government's enacting the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 the school came under the purview of the said Act and Code would apply in respect of those which have not been covered by the Constitution as well as the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The Code has presently only a limited application and has only a status of the Administrative Instruction. The fourth respondent recognized and aided to the extent of deficit. 10. It is submitted that after making all payments including disbursement of salary, the schools have to claim reimbursement from the Government. The managements of the respective schools have to submit financial statement in the prescribed form of the Directorate of School Education and these statements are checked and audited by the Departmental Financial Adviser and the Chief Accounts Officer in the cadre of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Finance Department. The managements of the respective schools have to submit financial statement in the prescribed form of the Directorate of School Education and these statements are checked and audited by the Departmental Financial Adviser and the Chief Accounts Officer in the cadre of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Finance Department. Any additional expenditure incurred over and above the income is released as deficit grant to all the Anglo Indian Schools and the amount of Rs.95.80 Lakhs was sanctioned for the year 2010-11 as deficit grant for all the 33 Anglo Indian Schools by the Government. Hence, the aid from government is very limited even in respect of the sanctioned posts. It is submitted that the management of the school is a service body without any profit motive and the school has no commercial interests at all. 11. It is submitted that fourth respondent's school has number of management staffs and are paid by the management. The government as a policy decision has long back stopped sanctioning of new posts as well as new sections. The staffs sanctioned by the Government are insufficient to maintain and run fourth respondent school. As the management requires more staff on the teaching as well as non teaching side, the management of fourth respondent school has appointed them who are paid by fourth respondent management. It is submitted that fourth respondent's school maintains the school campus very well and cleanliness and sanitation are given due importance and this involves cost. The painting of the school itself would cost a huge amount. Fourth respondent school has a well maintained and a fully equipped library as mandated. Fourth respondent school has a fully equipped computer lab with qualified computer teachers and for all these, fourth respondent school cannot utilize the fee collected as tuition fees and special fees approved by the Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools and these expenditures are met fully by the school management. 12. It is submitted that for the payment of the remaining staff whose posts are not approved, the school maintenance, expenditure referred above, electricity, water, tax, functions and other expenditure will have to be borne by fourth respondent school management. No reimbursement can be claimed on all these expenditures from the government. Reimbursement can be claimed only of the deficit of tuition and special fee collections. 13. No reimbursement can be claimed on all these expenditures from the government. Reimbursement can be claimed only of the deficit of tuition and special fee collections. 13. It is submitted that the code would not apply to management staff including the writ petitioner as they are appointed under the management's right under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and under the TMA Pai Foundation's case the Honourable Supreme Court has held that with regard to unaided posts, the State's interference cannot be there and the right of the minority institution is absolute. 14. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner in the fourth respondent school is purely a contractual one commencing from 03.06.2006 as a probationer. The subsequent appointments have been on 30.03.2006, 23.04.2007 and 18.04.2008. The order dated 18.04.2008 alone is relevant in this case. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner's services as librarian had been extended for one more academic year i.e., up to 30thApril, 2009 and this was accepted by the petitioner on 19.04.2008 without any protest. Hence even this appointment is a contractual one for one year alone as a probationer. It is submitted that even in respect of a public servant, the probationer has no right to the post as observed by the Constitution Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another Vs Ram Narayan Das (1961 I LLJ 552). At page 556 of the said Judgement it has been held as under: “The respondent has no right to the post held by him. Under the terms of his employment, the respondent could be discharged in the manner provided under Rule 55 B. Again mere termination of employment does not carry with it “any evil consequences” such as forfeiture of his pay or allowances, loss of his seniority, stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, etc., It is then difficult to appreciate what “indelible stigma affecting the future career” of the respondent was cast on him by the order discharging him from employment for unsatisfactory work and conduct. The uses of the expression “discharge” in the order terminating employment of a public servant is no decisive; it may in certain cases, amount to dismissal. The uses of the expression “discharge” in the order terminating employment of a public servant is no decisive; it may in certain cases, amount to dismissal. If a confirmed public servant holding a substantive post is discharged, the order would amount to dismissal or removal from service; but an order discharging a temporary public servant may or may not amount to dismissal. Whether it amounts to an order of dismissal depends upon the nature of the enquiry, if any, the proceedings taken therein and the substance of the final order passed on such enquiry.” 15. It is submitted that the order dated 06.11.2008 was withdrawn under the order dated 03.12.2008 and hence there is no stigma as against the petitioner. The order dated 17thDecember, 2008 discharging the services of the petitioner is a discharge simpliciter. It is a mere discharge and it does not carry with it “any evil consequences” such as forfeiture of his pay or allowances, loss of his seniority, stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, etc. It is submitted that there is no indelible stigma affecting the future career of the petitioner as well. In any event, the period of service is only up to 30.04.2009 and the management is always ready and willing to pay the salary for the period and the cheque which was given earlier to the petitioner in this regard. 16. It is submitted that the prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 17.12.2008 and if the writ petition is allowed it would only restore the order of appointment dated 18.04.2008 and since the period of service under the contractual period has ended on 30thApril, 2009 nothing survives in this writ petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. 17. It is submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court in Vidyavarthaga Sangha and another Vs Y.D.Deshpande and others, has held that it now well settled principle of law that the appointment made on probation/ad hoc basis for a specific period of time comes to an end by efflux of time and the person holding such post can have no right to continue on the post and employee having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment orders and joined the posts in question cannot be permitted to turn their back and say that their appointment could not be terminated on the basis of appointment letters. 18. It is submitted that in the case on hand as well under the orders dated 18.04.2008, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner's services as librarian had been extended for one more academic year i.e., up to 30thApril 2009 and this was accepted by the petitioner on 19.04.2008 without any protest. Hence even this appointment is a contractual one for one year alone as a probationer which has come an end by efflux of time on 30.04.2009. The petitioner cannot make a claim beyond this. 19. It is submitted that the petitioner has no right to hold the post at all and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Ravi submits that the petitioner was appointed as a librarian on probation in the fourth respondent's school after submitting her educational qualifications. She is possessing three Master degrees obtained from the Madras University and Annamalai University on 03.06.2005. After a satisfied performance, the fourth respondent extended her service from 30.03.2006 to 30.04.2007, subsequently the service period was extended upto 30.04.2008. The highly competent counsel further submits that the fourth respondent's School, also extended another period of one year i.e. upto 30.04.2009 on considering the petitioner's impeccable service as a librarian besides she also taught moral science to the 10thStandard students. The highly competent counsel Mr.S.Ravi further submits that the petitioner had been appointed as a Librarian in the fourth respondent's School for an initial period of one year, subsequently the fourth respondent Management periodically extended her service after full satisfaction of her prompt service. Under the circumstances, the fourth respondent terminated her service without any valid reasons which is against the principles of natural justice. Under the circumstances, the fourth respondent terminated her service without any valid reasons which is against the principles of natural justice. As on date the petitioner is suffering without any job since she is depending upon the Librarian post, in which she was functioning with the fourth respondent's Management. The learned counsel has cited the following judgments supporting her case: 1. AIR 1954 SCC 526 (Moran Mar Basselios Chatholicos and another, Appellants v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, Respondents.) 2. AIR 1999 SC 1510 (B.S.Bajwa and another, Appellant v. State of Punjab and others, Respondents.) 3. (2003) 2 SCC 111 (Bhavnagar University, Appellant v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others, Respondents.) 4. (2004) 1 SCC 43 (Union of India, Appellant v. Madhusudan Prasad, Respondent) 5. AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 291 (Veer Kunwar Singh University Ad Hoc Teachers Association and Ors. v. Bihar State University (C.C.) Service Commission and Ors.) 6. 2007-2-LW-753 (Vidyavardhaka Sangha & another, Appellants v. Y.D.Deshpande & others, Respondents) 7. (2008) 7 SCC 388 (Correspondent, ST. Michael's Teacher's Training Institute, Appellant v. V.N.Karpaga Mary and others, Respondents) Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 21. The highly competent counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been appointed as a Librarian on a temporary basis. The fourth respondent's School is a minority school and had not received any benefits from the Government. The fourth respondent is running the school as a non-profit educational institution. Further, the fourth respondent had instituted model educational institution 100 years ago. The fourth respondent's Management has paid salaries to the teaching staff and non-teaching staff through their management. The Management has not received any grant from either governments. Further, free boarding is provided by the management to the poor students. The school is being recognized by the Tamil Nadu Government. Further, after making all payments including dispersement of salaries, the fourth respondent's school has to claim reimbursement from the government. The financial statement has to be submitted periodically to the 1strespondent for their audit and approval. Further, the Government is providing very limited funds out of which the fourth respondent has to run the school which is a service body and without any profit motive or commercial interest. The financial statement has to be submitted periodically to the 1strespondent for their audit and approval. Further, the Government is providing very limited funds out of which the fourth respondent has to run the school which is a service body and without any profit motive or commercial interest. Further, the Government as a policy decision long back had stopped sanctioning of new posts as well as new sections. The staff sanctioned by the Government is insufficient to maintain and run the fourth respondent's school. The fourth respondent's school if in need of any teaching or non-teaching staff, the management has to pay their salaries out of school funds. Additionally the fourth respondent is collecting minimum fees from the students. Further, some of the staff are working in the non-sanctioned post, for them the school cannot claim any reimbursement. The petitioner's appointment is purely on a contractual basis commencing from 03.06.2006 upto 18.04.2008 as a professional employee. As such, the petitioner cannot claim any rights from the fourth respondent school. The Librarian post is not essential to the school students and also the management is unable to pay a salary to the petitioner any longer. Hence, the very competent counsel Mr.M.Ramamoorthy requests the Court to dismiss the above writ petition, he also cited the following judgment: 1. 2007-2-LW-753 (Vidyavardhaka Sangha & another, Appellants v. Y.D.Deshpande & others, Respondents) 2. 1961 I LLJ 552 (State of Orissa and another v. Ram Narayan Das) 22. The highly competent counsel Mr.V.Shanmugasundar appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the Government has not sanctioned any Librarian post to the fourth respondent's school. The Government has sanctioned 42 posts which is consisting of teaching and nonteaching staff. The fourth respondent has appointed the petitioner without the consent of the Government. The Inspector of Anglo-Indian School had conducted an inspection on 15.12.2008 and at that point of time, the petitioner's name had not been included in the teaching staff list. Surely the Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools would contend that a librarian is part and parcel of any reputed school destitution; so why not include the librarian as a serving staff? Therefore, if any contractual arrangement made between the fourth respondent, the Government is not liable to pay any salary to the petitioner through the fourth respondent's school. Surely the Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools would contend that a librarian is part and parcel of any reputed school destitution; so why not include the librarian as a serving staff? Therefore, if any contractual arrangement made between the fourth respondent, the Government is not liable to pay any salary to the petitioner through the fourth respondent's school. (i) Considering the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is highly qualified and she obtained Master Degree M.A., M.L.I.S. and M.Phil in Librarian Science from the Madras University and Annamalai University and she has been appointed on 03.06.2006 as a Librarian and her service has been extended from time to time, she served upto 18.04.2008 without any adverse remarks. The Librarian post is also essential to an educational institution. The fourth respondent's school after availing the service for a limited period, thereafter she had been terminated from service without any valid reason, as such the petitioner is put into hardship. (ii) Now the 4threspondent's school plea is that they are unable to pay the salary from the school fund to the petitioner, this stand cannot be accepted since the fourth respondent themselves appointed the petitioner after verifying her educational qualification. Further, the fourth respondent is well aware that the petitioner has been appointed in the non-sanctioned post. The order of the fourth respondent is obviously based on his whims and fancies which is against the principle of natural justice. (iii) The petitioner as on date was not employed anywhere else being a highly qualified librarian. As per the affidavit of the petitioner she also extended her service to the school for conducting school tests as an Invigilator besides teaching the 10thstandard student in moral science which clearly proves that the petitioner is extending her co-operation with the fourth respondent's school management for the welfare of the students and their improvement. (iv) The fourth respondent's termination order to the petitioner cannot be sustainable under law since before passing this final order no preliminary enquiry was conducted after show cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner's fundamental rights has been affected since she is not been given an opportunity for taking a decision by the governing body which has been passed unanimously. (v) The petitioner is a highly qualified person in academic qualification possessing three Master Degrees, therefore being versatile she also rendered service as a teaching staff and as Invigilator. Therefore, the petitioner's fundamental rights has been affected since she is not been given an opportunity for taking a decision by the governing body which has been passed unanimously. (v) The petitioner is a highly qualified person in academic qualification possessing three Master Degrees, therefore being versatile she also rendered service as a teaching staff and as Invigilator. 23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on all sides and on perusing the impugned order of the fourth respondent and the views as mentioned in (i) to (iv) as above, this Court is inclined to allow the above writ petition and quash the fourth respondent's letter dated 17.12.2008, consequently directs the fourth respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the same post with 50% backwages from the date of termination until re-employment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Accordingly ordered.