JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to retain the Petitioner in the Post of the Head Mistress in the 4th Respondent School as per the earlier order of promotion dated 07.07.2010 on the file of the Respondent No.4.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 in the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to retain the petitioner in the post of Headmistress in the 4th respondent School as per the earlier order of promotion dated 07.07.2010 on the file of the 4th respondent. 2. The petitioner was appointed Secondary Grade Teacher at the 4th respondent minority school viz. R.C.Primary School, Abbasipuram, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District, under the Arch Diocese of Madurai. The petitioner was transferred to R.C. Middle School, Theni on 03.07.1993. Then again, the petitioner was transferred back to the 4th respondent school on 18.11.1996. She had 20 years of service as Secondary Grade Teacher at the time of filing this writ petition. 3. Prior to the appointment, the petitioner had finished her HSC and completed 2 years course in Brindavan Kindergarten Teacher's Training and obtained a Teacher's Certificate No.55/88 (Secondary Grade) dated 20.06.1988 issued by the Tamil Nadu Education Department. Thereafter, she had also completed the B.Lit.(Tamil) during the year 2004. 4. The 3rd respondent had vide proceedings in Thu.Mu.No.559/A6/2000 dated 20.09.2000 had provided selection grade to the petitioner for having completed 10 years of service in the cadre of secondary grade teacher. She had also earned her increments in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher before being promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the 4th respondent by order dated 07.07.2010 in the same School with effect from 09.07.2010. She had joined the post and started discharging her duties as the Headmistress of the 4th respondent School. The 4th respondent had sought the customary approval of the of the 3rd respondent for the promotion of the petitioner. 5. She had joined the post and started discharging her duties as the Headmistress of the 4th respondent School. The 4th respondent had sought the customary approval of the of the 3rd respondent for the promotion of the petitioner. 5. In proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010, the 3rd respondent had raised questions regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher and directed the 4th respondent to refix the scale of pay. In response to the said communication, the 4th respondent had issued the impugned order withdrawing the earlier order of promotion dated 07.07.2010. On perusal, it is seen that the above proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent is not marked for the petitioner indicating that the decision was taken behind her back. 6. No notice was given to the petitioner for demoting the petitioner from the post of Headmistress to Secondary Grade Teacher. According to the petitioner, she is not even aware of the reasons why she is disqualified for the post of Headmistress at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 20.10.2010 of the 4th respondent. It was pointed out that the impugned order is cryptic and not speaking. Therefore, the petitioner alleged, that the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 of the 4th respondent is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The petitioner submits that she had completed 20 years of service as Secondary Grade Teacher and has been provided selection grade in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on completion of 10 years and therefore she is eligible for promotion to the post of Headmistress. It was alleged that the 4th respondent instead of justifying its own order of promotion had chosen to withdraw the order of promotion in an act of fear. The petitioner is aggrieved at the demotion to the grade of Secondary Grade Teacher after serving 3 months as Headmistress in the same School. It was submitted that the letter dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent is a communication privy to the 3rd and 4th respondent and came to be filed before this court only on 11.11.2014. It was pointed out that there was lot of discrepancies between the statements of the respondent and the actual proceedings in the letter dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent. It was pointed out that there was lot of discrepancies between the statements of the respondent and the actual proceedings in the letter dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent had approved her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher and pay was drawn and paid to her in the grade year after year and that even after that proceedings dated 14.10.2010, she continued to receive the same salary and therefore the only agenda behind the proceedings dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent is to prevent the petitioner form promotion to the post of Headmistress. It was submitted that the only post in Elementary School level is Secondary Grade Teacher and that the junior grade teacher is no more in existence. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had completed B.Lit in 2004 and the previous and current Headmaster of the 4th respondent school also possess the same qualification without B.Ed., and therefore it is wrong on the part of the respondents to say that she is only B.Lit and not B.Ed. 8. The 3rd respondent in her counter had pointed out that the promotion order dated 07.07.2010 of the 4th respondent is issued subject to approval by the 3rd respondent competent authority as has been mentioned in that order itself and that the decision has been taken within a short period of 3 months that the petitioner does not possess the qualification for the post of Headmistress of a Middle School. It was submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 of the 4th respondent withdrawing the promotion order dated 07.07.2010 in respect of the petitioner as she does not possess educational qualification to hold the post of the Headmistress of a Middle School. The petitioner had submitted that the competent authority for according approval for the promotion is the 2nd respondent and not the 3rd respondent. 9. The 2nd respondent while visiting the office of the 3rd respondent on annual inspection had pointed out that the petitioner had not got the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Head Mistress in the 4th respondent school and communicated the same in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010. 9. The 2nd respondent while visiting the office of the 3rd respondent on annual inspection had pointed out that the petitioner had not got the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Head Mistress in the 4th respondent school and communicated the same in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010. Subsequent to the communication, the 3rd respondent had verified the qualification of the petitioner and found her to be ineligible to the post of Headmistress for not meeting the qualification prescribed under Annexure V of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Rules, 1974. Interestingly, different qualifications are mentioned under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Rules, 1974 and The Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition & Payment) of Grant Rules, 1977. 10. The 3rd respondent would rely on Annexure V of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools, 1974 and the Tamil Nadu Government Order in G.O.Ms.No 172 School Education Department dated 31.10.2002 that require Kinder Garden Training Certificate holder should pass a Diploma in Teacher Education Exam as a private candidate to become eligible to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and arrived at the finding that until a Kinder Garden Training Certificate holder attains the Diploma in Teacher Education, he cannot be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher. The 3rd respondent would submit that as the petitioner had not obtained Diploma in Teacher Education Certificate, she is not eligible for the post of Headmistress and therefore her promotion could not be approved and therefore the request for approval was returned to the 4th respondent school. It was also submitted that the writ petition is also not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner failed to implead the incumbent Headmaster of the School and for not challenging the order of his appointment. 11. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is aware of the impugned proceedings and immediately after the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 of the 4th respondent she chose to go on medical leave. She returned from medical leave to join her post as Secondary Grade Assistant on 19.11.2010 and she is drawing the pay in the grade of Secondary Grade Assistant in the same school and therefore nothing survives in the writ petition and the same has become infructuous. It was also argued that the writ petition cannot survive as the same is against the order of a private school that is not a state. 12. It was also argued that the writ petition cannot survive as the same is against the order of a private school that is not a state. 12. The 4th respondent in their counter submits that the order dated 07.07.2010 was faulty as the same was passed believing that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Headmistress and that they had to withdraw the same as the fact of ineligibility was pointed out by the 3rd respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010. They had also submitted that the 3rd respondent had returned the request for approval sent by the them on the said grounds. It was argued that the writ petition is also not maintainable for the reason that the the petitioner failed to implead the incumbent Headmaster of the School and for not challenging the order of his appointment. 13. The petitioner in their written submissions filed on 3rd October, 2018 contended that the rule relied by the respondents viz., The Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools, 1974 is about the B.T. Assistant Qualification, whereas, the subject matter of this petition is the qualification for the post of Middle School Head Master. The petitioner had drawn the attention of this court to Chapter I.1-A of Annexure III (vide Rule -8) of the The Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition & Payment) of Grant Rules, 1977, wherein, the eligibility for the post of Middle School Head Master is (i) SSLC, (ii) TSLC of Secondary Grade or its equivalent and (iii) Should have worked as Teacher in a recognized school for a period not less that 5 years and pointed out that she possess all of the said qualifications. It was argued that even if the G.O.Ms No.172 School Education Department, dated 31.10.2002, requires Kindergarten Certificate holder should pass Diploma in Teacher Education Exam to become Secondary Grade Teachers, such an order can only have prospective effect and not retrospective effect and therefore, the same will not affect the appointment of the petitioner or her eligibility. They pointed to the distinction between the eligibility requirement for the posts of High School Head Master and the Middle School Head Master which is explicitly provided under the said Chapter I.1 & I.1-A of Annexure III (vide Rule-8) of the, The Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition & Payment) of Grant Rules, 1977 to drive home their point. They pointed to the distinction between the eligibility requirement for the posts of High School Head Master and the Middle School Head Master which is explicitly provided under the said Chapter I.1 & I.1-A of Annexure III (vide Rule-8) of the, The Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition & Payment) of Grant Rules, 1977 to drive home their point. They also relied on the proceedings of the Directorate of School Education in Rc.No.260723 D7/74 dated 06.02.1975 that stated that the Kindergarten Training Certificate holders can be employed in any schools. It was also pointed out that the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent speaks only about the pay band of the petitioner and not about the promotion of the petitioner and that the proceedings on the pay band is also not in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition & Payment) of Grant Rules, 1977. It was pleaded that the order cancelling the promotion of the petitioner had adversely affected the career of the petitioner and that already 8 plus valuable years of service in the post of Middle School Head Master is lost. It was alleged that the proper authority to approve or return the approval for promotion is the District Educational Officer and not the 3rd respondent and therefore the said proceedings is conveniently not produced before the court. 14. In the written arguments of the respondents, it was contended that the petitioner does not possess the qualification of TSLC of Secondary Grade while the feeder cadre for the post of Middle School Head Master is Senior Grade Teacher. It was argued that the petitioner failed to obtain the qualification necessary for appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in terms of the relief granted to the class of junior grade teachers in G.O.Ms.No.172 School Education Department, dated 31.10.2002. It was also argued that the impugned order is only a consequential order and as the original proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent was not contested, the present Head Master of the School will be aggrieved. They contended that the impugned order is non speaking as it is only a consequential order. They pointed out that the certificate produced by the petitioner is only a Kindergarten Certificate which is not equivalent to Diploma in Teachers Training or TSLC. They contended that the impugned order is non speaking as it is only a consequential order. They pointed out that the certificate produced by the petitioner is only a Kindergarten Certificate which is not equivalent to Diploma in Teachers Training or TSLC. It was argued that the G.O.Ms.No 172 School Education Department came to be issued on 31.10.2002 and the petitioner was considered for the post of Middle School Head Master only thereafter and as such the said GO governs the field. It was argued that mere wrong quotation of the Rule does not vitiate the entire process. It was submitted that the statutory rules should prevail particularly, if it pertains to the qualification of a teacher. It was pointed out that the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent was already communicated to the petitioner as could be seen from the additional Type Set filed before this Court and the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same. 15. Heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher at the 4th respondent school in 1990. The same was approved by the 3rd respondent and eventually, she was given selection grade on completion of 10 years by the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent school is a minority institution. By an order dated 07.07.2010, she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress by the 4th respondent school and served the school as Head Mistress for three months. During her tenure as the Head Mistress, the 4th respondent had sent the order of promotion to the 3rd respondent for approval. It is averred that the request was returned, but the copy of the proceedings returning the approval request is not placed on record before this court. The 3rd respondent had in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 had questioned the pay band of the petitioner on the basis of point raised by the 2nd respondent at the time of inspection of the 3rd respondent's office. The question was raised on the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.172 School Education Department, dated 31.10.2002, wherein, the junior grade teachers appointed on the basis of the qualification under the pre 1995 times were directed to clear the Diploma in Teacher Education Exam as a private candidate and upgrade themselves as secondary grade teachers. 16. The question was raised on the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.172 School Education Department, dated 31.10.2002, wherein, the junior grade teachers appointed on the basis of the qualification under the pre 1995 times were directed to clear the Diploma in Teacher Education Exam as a private candidate and upgrade themselves as secondary grade teachers. 16. Consequent to the above proceedings dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent withdrew the promotion order dated 07.07.2010 of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 and reverted her back to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. She continues to draw pay in the grade of secondary grade teacher and this fact is not denied by the respondents but admitted and relied by them in their grounds of the case. Aggrieved by the above order of the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Therefore, it flows that irrespective of their contentions in the writ petition, the respondents questioned the eligibility of the petitioner to get promotion to the post of the Head Mistress while the entitlement to draw pay in the grade of Secondary Grade Teacher is not questioned by the respondents. It is a bizzare position to take. 17. The petitioner had completed her HSC and obtained a Teacher's Certificate No.55/88 (Secondary Grade) dated 20.06.1988 issued by the Tamil Nadu Education Department before her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school. She got the selection grade during the year 2010 approved by the 3rd respondent. She went on to complete her B.Lit in the year 2004. The petitioner also pointed out that the out-going and incumbent Head Masters before and after her appointment also hold only B.Lit and not B.Ed. Therefore, it is evident that the respondents had no issues with the appointment, qualifications and the entitlement for selection grade of the petitioner. Perusal of the 3rd respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010, it is seen that the same does not speak anything about the promotion of the petitioner or the request for approval for promotion of the petitioner. It speaks only about the revision in fixation of pay that the respondents, in their own admission, have not chosen to give effect to. Perusal of the 3rd respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010, it is seen that the same does not speak anything about the promotion of the petitioner or the request for approval for promotion of the petitioner. It speaks only about the revision in fixation of pay that the respondents, in their own admission, have not chosen to give effect to. In the result, the said proceeding dated 14.10.2010 that has nothing on the promotion of the petitioner or its approval was cited by the 4th respondent to withdraw the promotion order dated 07.07.2010 of the petitioner. The respondents had admitted that the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 of the 4th respondent is non speaking and cryptic, and no notice was issued to the petitioner before taking recourse to the argument that the impugned order is only a consequential order of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it is evident that the principles of natural justice is denied to the petitioner. The proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent does not speak about the promotion of the petitioner. The submissions of the respondents in this writ petition regarding the promotion of the petitioner is independent of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent and therefore, the argument that the impugned order is only consequential has no merit. 18. From the counter filed by the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner had attempted to give an impression that the petitioner was wrongly appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, as she did not have the qualification prescribed under The Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Rules, 1974. But, the 4th respondent school is a minority institution. The qualifications for appointment of teachers for the minority institution is clearly given in Annexure III of the, The Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition & Payment) of Grant Rules, 1977. The eligibility for promotion to the post of Middle School Head Master is clearly stated under Chapter I.1A of the Annexure III (under Rule 8) of the, The Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition & Payment) of Grant Rules, 1977. Therefore, 4th respondent being a minority school, there seem to be no infirmity in the initial appointment and the subsequent grant of selection grade to the petitioner and the same were rightly approved by the respondents. Therefore, 4th respondent being a minority school, there seem to be no infirmity in the initial appointment and the subsequent grant of selection grade to the petitioner and the same were rightly approved by the respondents. This preposition is settled in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.604 of 2000 reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1206 as rightly pointed out by the petitioner. 19. The petitioner, on the date of promotion had completed 20 years of service in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and had drawn the pay for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher that continues till date even after the withdrawal of promotion. Therefore, it is clear that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress by the order dated 07.07.2010 of the 4th respondent has no connection whatsoever with the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.464/A1/2010 dated 14.10.2010 of the 3rd respondent. As such, the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the 4th respondent is cryptic and non speaking and is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 20. G.O.Ms.No.172, School Education Department dated 31.10.2002 was sought to be interpreted by the respondents in a way to disqualify the petitioner from promotion to the post of Head Mistress. On perusal of the GO, it is seen that the Junior grade teachers as on the date of the GO appointed under the qualifications prescribed therein, were required to clear the Diploma in Teacher Education Exam as a private candidate in the event they wanted to be upgraded as Senior Grade teachers to give effect to the decision that the posts of junior grade teachers be dispensed with from the education system as a matter of Government Policy. The petitioner on the contrary was a Secondary Grade Teacher right from 1990 and reached selection grade during 2000 and both approved by the competent authority under the governing rules. She was not a Junior grade teacher as on the date of the passing of the GO and therefore, the GO is inapplicable to her. 21. A plea was taken by the respondents that the incumbent Head Master has to be impleaded in the Writ Petition to preserve his rights. She was not a Junior grade teacher as on the date of the passing of the GO and therefore, the GO is inapplicable to her. 21. A plea was taken by the respondents that the incumbent Head Master has to be impleaded in the Writ Petition to preserve his rights. I reject the plea for the reason that the injustice meted out to the petitioner is independent of the posting of the incumbent Head Master and her right to equity and justice cannot be altered at the pleadings of the incumbent Head Master. 22. In view of the discussions above, the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 on the file of the 4th respondent withdrawing the promotion of the petitioner is improper and illegal and the petitioner has rightly been promoted to the post of Head Mistress in the 4th respondent School as per the earlier order of promotion dated 07.07.2010 on the file of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have continued as Head Mistress in terms of the Order dated 07.07.2010 of the 4th respondent and she was demoted behind her back by a cryptic order without giving an opportunity of hearing for her to put forth her defence much to her bewilderment. 23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.10.2010 is set aside and the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner in the post of the Head Mistress at the 4th respondent school with immediate effect. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.