JUDGMENT (Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the order passed in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2011 dated 23.08.2013 and allow the present review application.) R. Subramanian, J. 1. The petitioner seeks review of the order of the Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2011 dated 23.08.2013 on the sole ground that the Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the 2nd appellant/5th respondent herein, to be treated as a Secondary Grade Teacher from 01.06.1998. 2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the review are as follows:- The petitioner in this review application was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school on 20.04.1990. There arose a vacancy for the post of Headmaster in the said school on 01.06.1998. Disregarding the provisions of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, the 5th respondent was appointed as a Headmaster by direct recruitment on 01.06.1998. The 4th respondent school sought for approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Headmaster. The authorities rejected the claim for approval on 10.09.1999. An appeal filed before the appellate authority challenging the order of rejection also, came to be dismissed on 10.02.2000. A further appeal was field to the Government by the 4th respondent school. The same was rejected by the Government on 19.07.2001. 2.1. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department, dated 03.10.2002, making it clear that recruitment of Graduate Teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers after 19.05.1998 would not be approved. The respondents 4 and 5 jointly filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9823 of 2001 challenging the order dated 30.04.2001 of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Srivilliputhur, placing one Baby @ Umayal Parvathy as Headmistress(in-charge) of the 4th respondent school. Though initially a stay was granted, the stay order was vacated on 05.03.2002. Despite vacation of the stay order, the 5th respondent continued to work as a Headmaster. The petitioner herein filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.638 of 2002. In the said contempt petition, the 5th respondent filed a counter stating that he had not been working as a Headmaster after vacation of the interim orders on 05.03.2002. 2.2. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1907 of 2005 seeking a direction to consider his representation. In the said contempt petition, the 5th respondent filed a counter stating that he had not been working as a Headmaster after vacation of the interim orders on 05.03.2002. 2.2. While things stood thus, the 5th respondent filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.1907 of 2005 seeking a direction to consider his representation. This Court issued a direction requiring the respondent to consider the representation of the 5th respondent to regularise his appointment as Headmaster in terms of G.O.Ms.No.34, Education Department, dated 17.03.2003 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The 5th respondent subsequently filed W.P.M.P(MD)No.1609 of 2006 in W.P(MD)No.1907 of 2005, seeking a modification of the order of this Court directing the respondents to consider his claim also in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.4 and 163, Education Department, dated 19.02.2004 and 07.12.2004 respectively. This Court, by order dated 28.03.2006, granted the prayer for modification. 2.3. Thereafter, the competent authority namely, the Government by order dated 17.10.2008, granted approval to the appointment of the 5th respondent with effect from 01.06.1998. It, however, directed that the 5th respondent will receive a salary of a Secondary Grade Teacher for the first 5 years and thereafter he would be entitled to the salary of a Headmaster. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10248 of 2008. 2.4. The main grounds of challenge were that the 5th respondent was not qualified and there is a violation of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 12.08.2011 on the ground that the appointment of the 5th respondent itself was irregular and therefore, the approval granted is also irregular. 2.5. The said order was challenged by the 5th respondent in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2011. The Division Bench by judgment dated 23.08.2013, concurred with the conclusions of the Writ Court and held that the appointment of the 5th respondent is invalid. In doing so, the Division Bench observed as follows:- ''10. Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, is applicable to the first appellant aided school. Rule 15(4)(i) clearly states that promotion shall be made on merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. In doing so, the Division Bench observed as follows:- ''10. Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, is applicable to the first appellant aided school. Rule 15(4)(i) clearly states that promotion shall be made on merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. Rule 15(4)(ii) mandates that appointments to various categories of teachers shall be made firstly by promotion among the qualified teachers in that school and, if no qualified teachers are available in that school, other persons including the non-teaching staff working in that school, can be employed, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers, and, only when they are not available, appointment of teachers from any other school or by direct recruitment can be made with the prior permission of the District Elementary Educational Officer or the Chief Educational Officer, as the case may be. 11. The said issue was already considered by this Court in the decisions reported in (2005) 4 MLJ 679 (R. Balavadivel v. Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul), (2009) 5 MLJ 1000 (S.Pandara Vadivu v. Director of Elementary Education), 2003 WLR 304 (M. Chelladorai v. Joint Director of School Education and Others) and 2005 (1) CTC 8 : (2005) 1 MLJ 250 (Secretary, Saliar Mahajana Higher Secondary Schools v. G.Subburaj). No exemption is granted for not following Rule 15(4)(ii) to ratify the appointment of the second appellant by the management. 12. Thus, the appointment given to the second appellant by the first appellant as Headmaster, is in violation of the statutory rule viz., Rule 15(4)(ii) and the same cannot be treated as valid appointment.'' 2.6. After having held that the appointment itself is invalid, the Division Bench, however, directed the appointment of the 5th respondent from 01.06.1998 to be treated as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 2.7. The petitioner has come up with this review application mainly contending that the appointment being in violation of a statutory rule namely, Rule 15(4)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, the same cannot be treated as a valid appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 2.7. The petitioner has come up with this review application mainly contending that the appointment being in violation of a statutory rule namely, Rule 15(4)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974, the same cannot be treated as a valid appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher. It was also pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed in Cont.P.No. 638 of 2002, the 5th respondent has categorically admitted that he has not been working since 05.03.2002 and therefore, the direction of the Division Bench to treat his appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher is flawed. 3. We have heard Mr.V.Paneerselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Mr.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 4. Now, it is contended by the respondents 4 and 5 that pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench made in W.P(MD)No. 960 of 2011, applications were called for by the school for appointment to the post of Headmaster on 10.03.2015 and the 5th respondent alone applied. Since the 5th respondent alone had applied, he was appointed as per the Resolution of the School Committee dated 19.03.2015. However, the said appointment has not been approved by the authorities till date. 5. Mr.Paneerselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the proceedings of the School Committee between 10.03.2015 and 19.03.2015 are only an eye wash. No application was called for and these records have been created for the purpose of defeating the claim of the petitioner. According to Mr.Paneerselvam, the 5th respondent even as of today is not qualified to be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher. He would point out that this Court had held that persons with higher qualification cannot be appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers and only those persons who were appointed between two particular dates namely, 11.07.1995 and 19.05.1998 could be regularised in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher after undergoing training in Child Psychology. Those persons who were appointed after 19.05.1998 cannot be regularised. The learned counsel would also point out that the very approval granted by the Government on 20.09.2008 is based on a wrong appreciation of the orders of the Division Bench dated 29.06.2001 which confers benefit only on 22 Secondary Grade Teachers who were parties before the Division Bench. Those persons who were appointed after 19.05.1998 cannot be regularised. The learned counsel would also point out that the very approval granted by the Government on 20.09.2008 is based on a wrong appreciation of the orders of the Division Bench dated 29.06.2001 which confers benefit only on 22 Secondary Grade Teachers who were parties before the Division Bench. He would also point out that the Government was misled into believing that the 5th respondent was in continuous service. 6. Drawing our attention to the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, dated 17.10.2008, Mr.Paneerselvam would contend that the said officer has misled the Government. In the counter affidavit filed in Cont.P.No. 638 of 2002 on 27.12.2002, the 5th respondent has categorically stated that he had not been working as a Teacher from the date on which interim orders were vacated that is on 05.03.2002. Interim orders granted in W.P.No.9823 of 2001 were vacated on 05.03.2002. Therefore, the statement made by the District Educational Officer to the effect that the 5th respondent has been in continuous service from 01.06.1998 till 17.10.2008 is apparently a falsehood made with a intent to aid perpetration of fraud by the respondents 4 and 5. The attendance register of the 4th respondent school for the period from 1998 to September 2008 has been produced. The same has been obtained under the Right to Information Act. A perusal of it shows that the name of the 5th respondent is not found therein from the month of January 2002. It is, therefore, clear that the 5th respondent has not been working even as a Teacher in the 4th respondent school from January 2002. Therefore, the Division Bench was not justified in directing the appointment of the 5th respondent to be considered as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 7. The learned counsel would also point out that admittedly, the 5th respondent has not served as a Teacher even for 5 years from 01.06.1998, since he did not work from 05.03.2002. Therefore, the approval granted is totally flawed and based on incorrect facts. 7. The learned counsel would also point out that admittedly, the 5th respondent has not served as a Teacher even for 5 years from 01.06.1998, since he did not work from 05.03.2002. Therefore, the approval granted is totally flawed and based on incorrect facts. Faulting the Division Bench for allowing the 5th respondent to continue as a Secondary Grade Teacher even though he was not qualified, Mr.Paneerselvam would contend that the Division Bench having held that the very appointment of the 5th respondent as a Secondary Grade Teacher is illegal and the 5th respondent is not qualified, it ought not to have directed the continuance of the 5th respondent as a Secondary Grade Teacher. He would also point out that the fact that the 5th respondent was not working from 05.03.2002 was suppressed during the course of the proceedings. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that even as of today, the 5th respondent is not qualified since he has not undergone the Child Psychology Training as required by the relevant Government Orders. 8. Contending contra, Mr.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would submit that pursuant to the order of appointment dated 19.03.2015, the 5th respondent has been working as a Headmaster. Therefore, the orders of the Division Bench having been complied with, there is no ground for review of the order of the Division Bench dated 23.08.2013. 9. Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Management would adopt the submissions of Mr.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 10. We have considered the rival submissions. 11. We find that the order of the Division Bench, particularly, directing the 5th respondent to be continued in service as a Secondary Grade Teacher has to be reviewed, for the reason that it is beyond the scope of the very writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition was to the approval accorded to the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Headmaster in the 4th respondent school. The Hon'ble Division Bench had found that the said appointment is illegal and it is against the rules. Therefore, it had set aside the appointment. After setting aside the appointment, the Division Bench by granting the relief to the 5th respondent, had overstepped and dealt with the matter which was not the controversy before it. The Hon'ble Division Bench had found that the said appointment is illegal and it is against the rules. Therefore, it had set aside the appointment. After setting aside the appointment, the Division Bench by granting the relief to the 5th respondent, had overstepped and dealt with the matter which was not the controversy before it. This, in our opinion, would amount to an error on the face of the record. 12. Recently, that is, on 20.04.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha and others etc. vs. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan etc. [Civil Appeal Nos.3036-3064 of 2022, dated 20.04.2022] held that appointments made without following the procedures prescribed under the rules are void ab initio and therefore, they cannot be regularised. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the earlier judgments and rejected the contention that the teachers who were appointed in violation of the rules should be regularised. In doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- ''32. It is not in dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/teachers have been made directly by the respective Management without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/Statute. It is a trite law that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. Reference in this respect could be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal and another vs. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse (Mrs) and others, J & K Public Service Commission and others vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others, Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, and Union of India and another vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh.'' 13. The second reason is, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Paneerselvam, the 5th respondent is not qualified to be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher since he has not undergone the Child Psychology Training. The protection given under G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department, dated 03.10.2002, would apply only to persons who were appointed till 19.05.1998 and not thereafter. Admittedly, the 5th respondent was appointed on 01.06.1998. That appointment was also in violation of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974. In the counter affidavit filed in Cont.P.No.638 of 2002 on 27.12.2002, the 5th respondent has categorically stated that he had not been working as a Teacher from the date on which interim orders were vacated, that is, on 05.03.2002. 14. That appointment was also in violation of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974. In the counter affidavit filed in Cont.P.No.638 of 2002 on 27.12.2002, the 5th respondent has categorically stated that he had not been working as a Teacher from the date on which interim orders were vacated, that is, on 05.03.2002. 14. This Court had repeatedly held that a direct recruitment made without prior permission is illegal. Reference can be made to a judgment of the Division Bench in Chief Educational Officer, Theni and another vs. Nadar Saraswathi Higher Secondary School, Theni District, reported in 2017 (2) CWC 521. Admittedly, the 4th respondent school had not obtained prior approval for appointment of the 5th respondent on 01.06.1998. Therefore, the said appointment itself is illegal. This appointment being illegal, the Division Bench ought not to have directed the appointment to be considered as that of a Secondary Grade Teacher. If the appointment of Headmaster is illegal on the ground of non obtaining of prior approval, it will be illegal even if the said appointment is considered as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 15. We are, therefore, constrained to review the judgment of the Division Bench made in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2011, dated 23.08.2013, only in respect of the direction issued to consider the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Secondary Grade Teacher from 01.06.1998, since we have found that the said direction is beyond the scope of the very writ petition. Thus, We allow this Review Application. The directions in clauses (a) and (c) to paragraph 15 of the order made in W.A(MD)No.960 of 2011, dated 23.08.2013, stand deleted. No costs.