Judgment :- V.M. Velumani, J. Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.8.2013, made in W.P.(MD)No.15609 of 2012. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent school is an aided non-minority middle school. One Jothy Parasakthi, who was working as Headmistress of the respondent school resigned from the post of Headmistress. In the vacancy that arose, on such resignation on 24.11.2010 one R.Baskarasethupathy was appointed as Headmaster. A proposal was sent to the appellants for approval. The third appellant by communication dated 07.07.2011, sought for certain particulars and the proposal was returned. The respondent resubmitted the proposal after complying with the particulars sought for, to the third appellant, who forwarded the same to the second appellant on 04.04.2012. No person possessing requisite teaching experience was available in the Employment Exchange. No person with requisite teaching experience attended the interview in response to the advertisement effected by the respondent. The said R.Baskarasethupathy possessed all prescribed qualifications except 5 years teaching experience. Therefore, he was appointed. Therefore, the proposal was rejected by the third appellant by the impugned order, dated 25.10.2012. The third appellant stated that there is no provision for relaxation of requisite 5 years teaching experience in the rules and there is no amendment to the rules. 3. The respondent contended that as on the date of appointment, the said R.Baskarasethupathy was possessing 3 years teaching experience and as on 13.11.2012 had completed requisite 5 years teaching experience and as such there is no impediment for the appellants to approve the appointment of R.Baskarasethupathy as Headmaster. The respondent relied on the order dated 6.11.2006, made in W.P.No.21006 of 2006. 4. The appellants in the counter affidavit, denied all the averments made by the respondent in the affidavit filed in the writ petition. According to the appellants, experience of 5 years teaching experience as Secondary Grade Teacher is a statutory rule to be promoted as Headmaster of Middle School. 4. The appellants in the counter affidavit, denied all the averments made by the respondent in the affidavit filed in the writ petition. According to the appellants, experience of 5 years teaching experience as Secondary Grade Teacher is a statutory rule to be promoted as Headmaster of Middle School. They also referred to Judgment of this Court dated 30.06.1997 made in W.A.No.1129 of 1992, wherein this Court held that educational qualification and age cannot be relaxed, but lack of experience as Secondary Grade Teacher can be relaxed provided, the individual will be entitled to salary of Middle School Headmaster only after completion of 5 years teaching experience and relaxation as per G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 05.07.2001, can be granted only if no candidate with requisite 5 years experience is available. As per Rule 15(b) of Annexure V of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Rules, 1974, 5 years experience as Secondary Grade Teacher is mandatory for the appointment of Middle School Headmaster. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned Judge after considering all the materials on record and taking note of the order dated 06.11.2006, passed in W.P.No.21006 of 2006, allowed the writ petition. Against the said order, dated 23.8.2013, the present appeal is filed. 6.The learned Special Government Pleader contended that there cannot be any compromise in the basic qualification for appointment. On 24.11.2010, when R.Baskarasethupathy was appointed as Middle School Headmaster, he did not possess the requisite qualification and hence, he is ineligible to be appointed. G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 05.07.2001, applies only when there is no person with requisite teaching experience is available. Obtaining requisite teaching experience, subsequent to appointment will not validate the irregular appointment. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal and setting aside the order of learned Judge. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that that as per G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 05.07.2001, lack of teaching experience can be relaxed only when no qualified person is available. In the present case, admittedly, no person was qualified to be appointed as Headmaster of Middle School. Further, the said R.Baskarasethupathy obtained requisite 5 years teaching experience at the time of filing of the writ petition. This issue was considered by this Court in similar cases and the authorities were directed to approve the appointment and pay the salary of B.T. Assistant till the person acquired requisite teaching experience. 8. Further, the said R.Baskarasethupathy obtained requisite 5 years teaching experience at the time of filing of the writ petition. This issue was considered by this Court in similar cases and the authorities were directed to approve the appointment and pay the salary of B.T. Assistant till the person acquired requisite teaching experience. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions put forth by either side and perused the materials on record. 9. This issue as to whether the appointment of a person as Middle School Headmaster, who did not possess 5 years experience can be approved or not is no longer res integra. This Court in earlier decision had held that the appointment as Middle School Headmaster can be approved, but persons will be eligible only for B.T. Assistant salary till he acquires requisite 5 years experience. 10. The issue on hand is squarely covered by the following unreported decisions of this Court: (1) W.P.No.1408 of 2010, dated 08.12.2010 (The State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Rational Primary Aided Elementary School), wherein in paragraph 6, it has been held as follows: “6. As far as the second ground is concerned, for appointment to the post of Headmistress the period of five years training is necessary. In the case on hand, the appointee viz., Manjula Devi has given consent that she will not receive salary attached to the post of Headmistress for a period of five years till she completes the training, which is required for such appointment. The Government has also granted exemption for such eligibility norms of five years' experience at the time of appointment with a condition that such appointee should undergo training in a period of five years. The learned single Judge having accepted the case of the respondent Management that the appointee will not claim salary attached to the post of Headmistress, in our opinion, as the fact that the Government has granted exemption for such appointment is not disputed, we are not inclined to interfere with the said finding of the learned single Judge. As on both grounds, we are not not inclined to entertain any grievance made in the writ appeal, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.” (2) W.P.No. 442 of 2007, dated 20.03.2007 (The Joint Director of Elementary Education and others Vs. As on both grounds, we are not not inclined to entertain any grievance made in the writ appeal, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.” (2) W.P.No. 442 of 2007, dated 20.03.2007 (The Joint Director of Elementary Education and others Vs. N.S. Meenakshi), wherein in paragraph 3, it has been held as follows: “3. Four reasons are given by the Department for not granting approval to the appointment of the first respondent as Headmistress of the second respondent school. The first reason is that the without five years' experience the appointment of Primary School Headmistress was made. This ground was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge in view of the G.O.Ms. No.97 dated 5-7-2001 relaxing the requirement of five years' experience. ...." (3) W.P.No.16383 of 2000, dated 03.11.2008 (Rational Primary Aided Elementary School Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, wherein in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, it has been held as follows: “3. The further case of the petitioner is that the said Manjula Devi was not appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher but as Headmistress of the School and B.Ed., teachers are eligible to be appointed in the Headmaster post and the similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.21006 of 2006, and by order dated 6.11.2006, it has been held that G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department (D2), dated 3.10.2002 is not applicable to the persons appointed in the Headmistress post and the Government also granted exemption to such of those Headmistress, who are not having five years of teaching experience. 4. In the instant case, the incumbent Manjula Devi has given a consent for not receiving salary as Headmistress for five years till the completion of five years training. The learned single Judge having noticed that G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department (D2), dated 3.10.2002 is not applicable to the appointment of the Headmistress in a primary school, allowed the writ petition. As against which, the respondents filed a Writ Appeal No.442 of 2007, which was also dismissed on 20.3.2007 and the Division Bench upheld the contention that G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department (D2), dated 3.10.2002 cannot be applied to the appointments made in the Headmistress post and the same is applicable only to the appointments made in the Secondary Grade vacancies. 5. In view of the above decision as stated supra, the impugned order is set aside. 5. In view of the above decision as stated supra, the impugned order is set aside. The third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the said Manjula Devi as Headmistress of the petitioner school with effect from 26.12.1997. However, the said Manjula Devi is entitled to get the Headmistress salary only on completion of five years of teaching experience unless the said experience is relaxed in favour of the said Manjula Devi. Necessary order to that effect is to be passed by the third respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” (4) W.P.No.16772 of 2012, dated 20.07.2012 ( B.Bharathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others), wherein in paragraphs 4 and 5, it has been held as follows: “4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter in issue is covered by the Division Bench orders in W.A.No.442 of 2007 dated 20.03.2007 and W.A.No.1408 of 2010 dated 08.12.2011. The learned Additional Government Pleader also after going through the Division Bench orders submitted that similar order may be passed. In the Division Bench order dated 08.12.201, the Division Bench held thus: *"4. Two questions arise for our consideration viz., i. Whether G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department (D2), dated 3.10.2002 would be applicable to the appointment of a B.Ed graduate to the post of Headmistress in a primary school and ii. If so whether the training for a period of five years is a pre-requisite condition for eligibility for such appointment? 5. As far as the first contention is concerned, a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.442 of 2007 has taken the view that in case a B.Ed graduate is appointed as Headmistress in a primary school, the said G.O. is not applicable and there cannot be any impediment for such appointment. The application of the G.O. is in relation to an appointment of B.Ed graduate to the post of Secondary grade teacher. As the said G.O. has been upheld by the Supreme Court finally, we are not inclined to take a different view that the one taken by the Division Bench, as admittedly the Government has also not questioned the said order of the Division Bench by any further appeal. 6. As far as the second ground is concerned, for appointment to the post of a Headmistress the period of five years training is necessary. 6. As far as the second ground is concerned, for appointment to the post of a Headmistress the period of five years training is necessary. In the case on hand, the appointee viz., Manjula Devi has given consent that she will not receive salary attached to the post of Headmistress for a period of five years till she completes the training, which is required for such appointment. The Government has also granted exemption for such eligibility norms of five years' experience at the time of appointment with a condition that such appointee should undergo training in a period of five years. The learned single Judge having accepted the case of the respondent Management that the appointee will not claim salary attached to the post of Headmistress, in our opinion, as the fact that the Government has granted exemption for such appointment is not disputed, we are not inclined to interfere with the said finding of the learned single Judge. As on both grounds, we are not inclined to entertain any grievance made in the writ appeal, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed." 5. In view of the above settled position, the impugned order dated 23.01.2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Headmistress with effect from 22.09.1997 with all consequential benefits, in the light of the order in W.P.No.21006 of 2006, dated 06.11.2006, confirmed by the order in Writ Appeal No.442 of 2007, dated 20.03.2007 and in Writ Appeal No.1408 of 2010, dated 08.12.2011. Necessary order to that effect is to be passed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." (5) W.P.No.4542 of 2006 and W.P.M.P. No.1579 of 2008, dated 28.10.2008 (T.Sam Razal Vs. The Secretary to Government and others), wherein in paragraphs 4 and 5, it has been held as follows: 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the First Bench of this Court, the Department has approved the appointment of N.S. Meenakshi as Headmistress on condition that till she completes five years experience, she will be paid Secondary Grade scale of pay and after completion of five years experience, she will be paid the Headmistress scale of pay. 5. 5. In the light of the above orders, the impugned order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the second respondent is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim for approval without reference to G.O.Ms.No. 559, Education, dated 11.07.1995 and pass orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner satisfies the requirement of five years of teaching experience, he is entitled to get approval of his appointment from the date of his appointment and otherwise, he is entitled to get approval as Headmaster with the scale of pay of Secondary Grade teacher for five years and on completion of five years, he is eligible to get the scale of pay of Primary School Headmaster. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed." (6) W.A.No.1494 of 2014, dated 11.12.2014 (The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department and others vs. S.Govindarajan), wherein in paragraphs 7 and 8, it has been held as follows: “7. The first respondent has taken up a specific contention in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the management obtained a list from the employment exchange and thereafter only steps were taken to call for applications from open market. The appellants have not denied the said statement even in the memorandum of grounds of appeal or in the affidavit filed in support of the stay petition. In any case, the reason that eligibility certificate was not taken from the employment exchange cannot be a valid ground to deny relaxation. 8. The learned Single Judge quoted the earlier order passed by the Writ Court and the related judgment of the Division Bench and allowed the writ petition. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the facts and circumstance of the case.” 11. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. The appellants are directed to consider the proposal of the respondent and approval of appointment of R.Baskarasethupathy, if he possess the requisite qualification, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. R.Baskarasethupathy will be entitled to B.T. Assistant's scale of salary till he acquires 5 years teaching experience. No costs. The appellants are directed to consider the proposal of the respondent and approval of appointment of R.Baskarasethupathy, if he possess the requisite qualification, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. R.Baskarasethupathy will be entitled to B.T. Assistant's scale of salary till he acquires 5 years teaching experience. Thereafter, he will be entitled to salary to the post of Middle School Headmaster. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.