JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. V. Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she had passed Diploma in Teaching Education Course, which is known as "DTED" and registered her name in the District Employment Exchange, Theni. She had appeared in Teacher Eligibility Test during the year 2013 and consequently she secured 87% marks. According to the petitioner, she is fully qualified to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The fourth respondent School, which is a Government aided School, receiving aid from the Government and also governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974, has called for applications for recruitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher against one maternity leave vacancy, caused by a teacher, namely, N. Akila from 12.02.2014 to 10.08.2014 in B.C. quota vacancy and subsequently, she also got selected and appointed against the said vacancy and that the appointment was approved by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 05.04.2014. Even though, the fourth respondent issued an order, appointing him as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the maternity leave vacancy only from 12.02.2014 to 10.08.2014, the fourth respondent did not relieve her after the said period and she was asked to continue in service in another maternity leave vacancy caused by another Secondary Grade Teacher, namely, Sudharani, from 01.09.2014 to 28.02.2015 with a promise that she would be given a regular appointment. She further submits that she was asked to sign in the attendance register separately and that the petitioner was handling the class-I 'D' section upto 31.12.2014. The petitioner stated that she was stopped handling the Class-I 'D' section from 01.01.2015 onwards and that the petitioner was not disbursed the salary for the period from 28.03.2014 to 10.08.2014 and from 01.09.2014 to 31.12.2014. She further stated that the salary for the period upto August 2014 was disbursed only after the period of ten months after several representations of the petitioner and for the rest of the period, her salary is yet to be disbursed by the respondents. 4. She further stated that the salary for the period upto August 2014 was disbursed only after the period of ten months after several representations of the petitioner and for the rest of the period, her salary is yet to be disbursed by the respondents. 4. In the mean time the fourth respondent gave an advertisement in the Tamil daily "Dinamalar" on 20.01.2015, calling for interview from the Secondary Grade Teacher Training Diploma holders for recruitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher against vacancies, namely, one post for OC and another post for SC with a condition that the candidates, who had secured more than 90% marks in TET examination alone could attend the interview and that the petitioner secured 87% marks. She further contended that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25 School Education (TRB) Department dated 06.02.2014, the petitioner is eligible to apply for the post, which is extracted below: "3.b) relaxing 5% marks from the 60% marks prescribed for clearing of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013 held on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Backward Classes (Muslims) Most Backward Classes, De-notified Communities and Persons with disability (PWD) and fixed at 55% or 82 marks." 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that she also made application to the 4th respondent with a fond hope that her case would be considered pursuant to her earlier recruitment and service in the 4th respondent school, but however, her application was neither acknowledged nor rejected, which compelled her to submit a representation to the 2nd respondent on 22.01.2015 indicating the aforesaid information and requested the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, as the petitioner secured more than minimum marks. 6. It is also submitted by the petitioner that to her shock and surprise, the fourth respondent selected the fifth respondent and that she was appointed without considering her employment rendered for the past twenty years. According to the petitioner, the impugned notification as well as the order of the fourth respondent is in violation of Rule 15(4)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. According to the petitioner, the impugned notification as well as the order of the fourth respondent is in violation of Rule 15(4)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. She has also contended that since the petitioner has been working in the fourth respondent School, the petitioner has preemptive right to be considered for appointment in terms of the aforesaid rules and that the conditions stipulated fixing the marks of 90% is unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary. The act of the fourth respondent in not keeping up the promise of appointing her in the regular vacancy is wholly untenable and there is also no justification for not disbursing the salary from 01.09.2014 to 31.12.2014 is totally unjust. 7. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the said Government Order has been set aside and the review filed against the said order was also quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, against which SLP is pending before the Supreme Court. 8. Even assuming for the sake of argument if it is taken that the fixing of marks beyond 87% is not correct in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25 School Education (TRB) Department, dated 06.02.2014 and also assuming that the said Government Order is in operation, still the petitioner may not be entitled to get the relief, as admittedly the fifth respondent secured 92% marks, which is more than the petitioner, who secured only 87% marks. Admittedly, the fifth respondent is a meritorious candidate and that the petitioner was appointed only to fill-up the vacuum when the teachers went on Maternity Leave and the stop gap arrangement cannot be quoted as a reason for seeking regular appointment. 9. Hence, I find no justification to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.