JUDGMENT : S.S. SUNDAR, J. PRAYER: The appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 02.02.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.21250 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge. These Writ Appeals are directed against the order dated 02.02.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.21250 of 2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these Writ Appeals, are as follows : The first respondent / Writ petitioner joined as a Christian Nun in the Congregation of Bon Secours, Trichy during the year 1997. On 17.01.2001, she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Infant Jesus Girls High School, Thuvakudimalai, Trichy and the said appointment was approved by District Elementary Educational Officer, Trichy. Thereafter, the first respondent / Writ petitioner was transferred to various schools run by the Congregation and ultimately, on 29.03.2014, she was transferred to the first appellant's school, namely, R.C. Primary School, Chemparuthivillai, Kanyakumari District. It appears that due to various reasons and family circumstances, the first respondent / Writ petitioner intended to relive herself as a Nun. It is stated that on that content, the superiors of the Congregation have obtained the signature of the first respondent / Writ petitioner in various blank papers. Thereafter, when the first respondent / Writ petitioner went to the first appellant's school to discharge her duties as Secondary Grade Teacher, she was not permitted to do so. It is stated by the first respondent that the Superiors of the Congregation, using the signatures obtained from her in blank papers, have manipulated a resignation letter and handed over the letter to the Correspondent of the school, who in turn forwarded the same to the District Elementary Educational Officer. It is the specific case of the first respondent that she had no intention to resign from the teaching post and the letter of resignation was given by her. Thereafter, on 11.11.2015 the first respondent / Writ petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents concerned not to accept the resignation letter alleged to have been submitted by her. The first respondent / Writ petitioner has filed the Writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.21250 of 2015 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to accept the resignation letter alleged to have been submitted by her and to permit her to work as Secondary Grade Teacher in the first appellant's school. 3. The first respondent / Writ petitioner has filed the Writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.21250 of 2015 for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to accept the resignation letter alleged to have been submitted by her and to permit her to work as Secondary Grade Teacher in the first appellant's school. 3. The contention of the first respondent / Writ petitioner in the Writ petition is that the alleged resignation letter dated 04.06.2015 was not submitted to the appellants / school at any point of time. It is also stated that the letter was manipulated by the superiors of the Congregation by getting her signature in the blank papers earlier. It is further contended that as per Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (herein after called "the Rules"), if a teacher in a private school intend to resign the said post, such teacher has to submit the resignation in writing to the District Educational Officer by registered post with acknowledgement due. It is contended that the resignation letter of the first respondent / Writ petitioner, which was not supposed to be submitted to the appellants / school management and which was not supposed to be proceeded for approval without a confirmation from the respondent, has been accepted. It is also contended that as per the said Rules, before passing orders to approve the resignation of the first respondent on the request of the appellants / Management, the educational authorities shall confirm the fact as to whether the first respondent herself had given the said resignation or not. 4. Though the resignation letter alleged to have been submitted by the first respondent was on 04.06.2015, the appellants / Management contended that they accepted the resignation letter on the same day and thereafter, they submitted the same for approval on 23.06.2015. It is further stated that on 07.07.2015 the third respondent granted approval for accepting the resignation. 5. Admittedly, in this case, the first respondent / Writ petitioner sent a representation only on 11.11.2015. However, the reasons for the delay was elaborately explained in the said representation. Taking note of the dates and events and Rule 17-A of the said Rules, the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ petition and directed the appellants to reinstate the first respondent in service forthwith. However, the reasons for the delay was elaborately explained in the said representation. Taking note of the dates and events and Rule 17-A of the said Rules, the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ petition and directed the appellants to reinstate the first respondent in service forthwith. It was also held by the Learned Single Judge that the first respondent shall have continuity of service. However, the claim of back-wages was denied to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeals have been filed both by the management and the 6th respondent in the Writ petition, who was appointed in the place of the Writ petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the resignation letter though was submitted to the appellants / Management by the first respondent on 04.06.2015, the fact remains that she never came to school for duty. It was in such circumstances, the appellants / Management were in a precarious position as how to deal with the situation as there was some urgency to act in the interest of students. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the resignation letter was sent for approval on 23.06.2015. In view of the urgency, another teacher was appointed on 26.06.2015 in the place of the first respondent from the same Congregation as the first respondent did not turn up after resignation and the resignation of the first respondent was approved by the third respondent on 07.07.2015. The conduct of the first respondent was highlighted and focused by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by stating that she came with the representation only on 11.11.2015. He would submit that the contention of the first respondent that she never submitted her resignation letter to the appellants / Management, is entirely false. The learned counsel mainly relied upon the delay and laches on the part of the first respondent in approaching the third respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 8. He would submit that the contention of the first respondent that she never submitted her resignation letter to the appellants / Management, is entirely false. The learned counsel mainly relied upon the delay and laches on the part of the first respondent in approaching the third respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 8. Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 is extracted as under - "17-A. Educational agencies not to obtain compulsorily resignation letter either at the time of appointment or subsequently from the employees in their school - (1) Whenever a Teacher or other person employed in a private school, tenders his resignation of appointment, he shall inform the fact of his resignation in writing by registered post with acknowledgement due to the District Educational Officer, Inspectress of Girls' School or the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned. (2) No Teacher or other person employed in a private school shall give to the educational agencies, at any time, undated or pre-dated resignation letter. (3) No Educational Agency shall insist or compel any Teacher or other person employed in private school to give, at any time, undated or pre-dated resignation letter. (4) No Teacher or other person employed in a private school shall be relieved from service on the strength of resignation letter. The resignation letter shall, on receipt, be sent to the Chief Educational Officer concerned in respect of Teacher and other persons employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers' Training Institutes and to the District Educational Officer concerned in respect of Teacher and other person employed in a Pre-Primary, Primary and Middle Schools. The Chief Educational Officer or District Educational Officer concerned shall, in turn, get the confirmation of the Teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, as to the fact of such resignation and then accord his approval to relieve the Teacher or other person employed, as the case may be, from service. (5) Entries regarding the date of acceptance of resignation of appointment shall be made by the Secretary of the School Committee, in the Teachers' Service Registers of the Teacher or in the Service Registers of the other persons employed in a private school under proper attestation and duly countersigned by the District Educational Officer or the Inspectress of Girls' Schools, as die case may be. (6) No substitute shall be appointed in the place of a Teacher or other person employed in a private school who has been relieved on the basis of the resignation letter tendered by him, without obtaining prior approval of the Chief Educational Officer concerned in respect of the Teacher and other person employed in High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers' Training Institutions and the District Educational Officers concerned in respect of Teachers and other persons employed in Pre-Primary, Primary and Middle Schools." 9. It is to be seen that Rule 17-A was introduced only to safeguard the interest of the teachers or other persons employed in a private school. It empowers the authorities to ascertain as to whether there was any coercion or compulsion to give resignation. It is not uncommon to note that some private minority institutions, even at the time of appointment of a teacher in their school, get a resignation letter from the teacher concerned. Since teachers are put in jeopardy on several occasions, Rule 17-A was introduced to prevent such practice. Hence, Rule 17-A was introduced as an internal mechanism to prevent private schools from getting resignation letter by force. It is seen that after introducing Rule 17-A, the intimation regarding resignation letter of the teacher concerned itself should be sent by the teacher through registered post with acknowledgement due to the District Educational Officer and Inspectress of Girls' school. No teacher, employed in any private school, is supposed to give a resignation letter at any time either undated or predated. The said Rules also insist the educational agency not to insist or compel any teacher or any person employed in a private school to give resignation letter undated or predated. 10. As per Rule 17-A(4) of the Rules, the District Educational Officer cannot act upon such resignation letter of teacher or any person employed in a private school, without getting confirmation from the teacher concerned with regard to the fact that such resignation letter was obtained from the teacher concerned. No teacher shall be relieved and no substitute shall be appointed in the place of a teacher without obtaining prior approval from the District Educational officer. 11. It is in these circumstances, the dates and events narrated above would clearly show that the resignation could not have been approved by the third respondent without a confirmation from the teacher. No teacher shall be relieved and no substitute shall be appointed in the place of a teacher without obtaining prior approval from the District Educational officer. 11. It is in these circumstances, the dates and events narrated above would clearly show that the resignation could not have been approved by the third respondent without a confirmation from the teacher. However, the third respondent, in disregard to the Rules, has approved the resignation at the request of the management. 12. From the records, it is also revealed that the 3rd respondent has passed an order on 07.07.2015 i.e., the date on which he received the proposal for approving the resignation of the first respondent from the Correspondent. It is also admitted before this Court that as per Rule 17-A, the 3rd respondent did not issue any notice to the first respondent before passing the order on 07.07.2015. It is admitted by the third respondent that confirmation on side of the first respondent was not obtained by the third respondent. All these factual aspects would clearly indicate that the third respondent has acted in violation of Rule 17-A of the Rules. The Learned Single Judge, having considered the mandatory provisions of Rule 17-A, has allowed the Writ petition and this Court has no reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge. 13. Considering the dates and events now furnished, this Court is able to see that the third respondent has acted in collusion with the appellants / Management to pass an order in haste so as to enable the appellants to appoint another candidate even before submitting the resignation by the first respondent. It is admitted that another teacher was appointed in the place of the first respondent on 26.06.2015, whereas, the approval for accepting resignation of the first respondent was granted only on 07.07.2015. The approval of resignation of the first respondent as well as the appointment of the new teacher in the place of the first respondent was simultaneously given. The management took a stand that they waited for few weeks after the resignation of teacher on 04.06.2015 and forwarded the resignation letter only on 23.06.2015. This statement is falsified by the letter dated 07.07.2015 of Assistant Elementary Education Officer referring to the letter dated 04.06.2015. The management took a stand that they waited for few weeks after the resignation of teacher on 04.06.2015 and forwarded the resignation letter only on 23.06.2015. This statement is falsified by the letter dated 07.07.2015 of Assistant Elementary Education Officer referring to the letter dated 04.06.2015. The contention of first respondent that she left the Congregation on 03.06.2015 and left the place on 03.06.2015 and that she had not given resignation letter on 04.06.2015 are acceptable. These aspects would clearly show that the individual interest of the teacher has to be protected by virtue of Rule 17-A which has been violated in this case. This Court is of the view that the act of the third respondent is contrary to law and the same is to help with the appellants / Management. The public officer like the third respondent is expected to follow the provisions of the Act and Rules meticulously. The very object of Rule 17-A has been defeated in this case. The 3rd respondent has taken pain to help the appellants / Management in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions. Hence, the appellant and the third respondent are liable to compensate the first respondent. Since the first respondent was denied back-wages by the Learned Single Judge on account of her submission that she would not claim back wages in case she is reinstated in service within 8 weeks, this Court is of the view that the first respondent is entitled to back wages as the appellants have preferred these appeals. The appellants and the third respondent in W.A.(MD) No.917 of 2018 are equally liable. 14. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to compensate the first respondent by paying the salary of the first respondent from 04.06.2015 to 11.11.2015 to the first respondent. We further direct the 2nd respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent (person who passed the order dated 07.07.2015) for dereliction of duty and also for his failure to observe the mandatory provisions of law. The claim if any for back wages for the subsequent period should be met by the Management. 15. The appellants / Management are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of law, which they were supposed to do. The claim if any for back wages for the subsequent period should be met by the Management. 15. The appellants / Management are bound to act in accordance with the provisions of law, which they were supposed to do. Even though this Court can direct the Government to take action against the appellants / Management for their deliberate violation of the provisions of law, we are inclined to restrict ourselves by directing the appellants / Management to pay the first respondent her salary from 07.07.2015 till she is reinstated. If the first respondent is agreeable to waive any or entire portion of back wages it is open to her to choose to purchase peace. 16. The Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.917 of 2018 is ordered accordingly. In view of the order passed in the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.917 of 2018 the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1322 of 2018 is dismissed. 17. The respondents 6 and 7 in the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.917 of 2018 have been impleaded as party at the instance of the appellants as they were not parties in the Writ petition, pointing out that certain observations have been made by the Learned Single Judge without their presence. Since the respondents 6 and 7 had no knowledge about this lis, they had no occassion to defend before the Learned Single Judge. Now they have come on record, their interest can be protected without going into merits. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 have made submissions with regard to the serious allegations levelled against them by the first respondent in the Writ petition. The learned counsel submitted that the allegations levelled against the respondents 6 and 7 are not only false but intentional with an ulterior motive. The learned counsel would go to the extent of referring to the contradictory stand taken by the first respondent in the Writ petition by producing some of the materials. 19. The learned counsel for the first respondent refuted the allegations now made by the learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7. 20. The learned counsel would go to the extent of referring to the contradictory stand taken by the first respondent in the Writ petition by producing some of the materials. 19. The learned counsel for the first respondent refuted the allegations now made by the learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7. 20. We feel that the issues or allegations exchanged between the first respondent and the respondents 6 and 7 are totally unnecessary to these Writ Appeal and hence, without deciding anything on the merits, this Court eschew the remarks which have been made by the Learned Single Judge as against the respondents 6 and 7 who were not made as a parties in the Writ petition. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the position that the denial of employment to the first respondent is in utter disregard to Rule 17-A of the Rules, we hold that the first respondent is entitled to continuity of service for the purpose of calculating pension and other benefits. 22. Post these Writ Appeals for reporting compliance after 4 weeks. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are closed.