JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the order passed by the 3rd respondent, issued in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3615/E2/2019, dated 28.06.2019, to quash the same and consequentially, to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1580, dated 18.10.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988, to the case of the petitioner and to protect the last drawn pay of the petitioner at Rs.16610+4800(GP)(9300- 34800+4800)(GP) as on 21.09.2012, in the post of P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) and to fix the same to the petitioner from 22.09.2012 when the petitioner joined the Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam and grant all consequential and monetary benefits with arrears and interest and seniority and other consequential service benefits.) 1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings, dated 28.06.2019 and consequentially, to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1580, dated 18.10.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988, to the case of the petitioner and to protect the last drawn pay of the petitioner at Rs. 16610+4800(GP)(9300- 34800+4800)(GP) as on 21.09.2012, in the post of P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) and to fix the same to the petitioner from 22.09.2012 when the petitioner joined the Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam and grant all consequential and monetary benefits with arrears and interest and seniority and other consequential service benefits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Grade P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) at St. Anne''s Higher Secondary School, Koodangulam, in the consolidated pay of Rs. 4500/- per month for 5 years, vide order, dated 24.08.2004 and the same was approved by the District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli, vide order, dated 19.07.2005, Thereafter, the petitioner''s salary was fixed as Rs. 6,500/- with effect from 01.06.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner was brought under time scale of pay and granted Rs. 9300- 34800+4800 with effect from 01.06.2006. The petitioner was also granted incentives increments for M.Phil. higher qualifications on 13.10.2009. The petitioner was working in St. Anne''s Hr. Sec. School, Koodangulam until 21.09.2012 afternoon. The petitioner got an appointment as P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), in Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam on 22.09.2012. 9300- 34800+4800 with effect from 01.06.2006. The petitioner was also granted incentives increments for M.Phil. higher qualifications on 13.10.2009. The petitioner was working in St. Anne''s Hr. Sec. School, Koodangulam until 21.09.2012 afternoon. The petitioner got an appointment as P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), in Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam on 22.09.2012. The petitioner was issued relieving order by the District Education Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli on 21.09.2012 and he joined the above said Government School on 22.09.2012 forenoon. The petitioner had completed probation on 21.09.2014. Originally through counselling, the petitioner was appointed in Government Higher Secondary School, R.S.Manglam, Ramanathapuram on 04.06.2013. Thereafter, in Government Higher Secondary School, Vadakku Chellaiahnallur on 28.10.2014 and subsequently, in the respondent''s school on 18.06.2018. While he was working in Government Higher Secondary School, Vadakku Chellaiahnallur, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings, dated 15.07.2016 granted Selection Grade by counting the petitioner''s past service rendered in St. Anne''s Higher Secondary School, which is from 25.08.2004 to 21.09.2012. However, the respondents failed to fix the petitioner''s salary received in the aided school, i.e., Rs.16610+4800 (GP) (9300-34800+4800) (GP) and fixed a lesser pay of Rs. 9300+4800 (GP). The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.06.2017, to the respondents seeking re-fixation of his pay based on his last drawn pay in the aided school at St. Anne''s Higher Secondary School and the same was forwarded by the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Vadakku Chellaiahnallur to the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 22.06.2017. 3. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.7924 of 2019 and this Court, vide order, dated 03.04.2019, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 12.06.2017 and pass orders. The 3rd respondent, passed the impugned order, dated 28.06.2019, rejecting the petitioner''s claim for fixation of pay, citing G.O.Ms.No.992, dated 22.06.1979, stating that the above said G.O., only provides for granting of selection grade, while counting the past service under different managements and the said G.O., does not provide for fixation of last drawn pay in the erstwhile aided school. The impugned order also provides that the Fundamental Rule 22 or 22 B will not be applicable when a Government servant who is appointed to another post through TNPSC by direct recruitment. 4. The impugned order also provides that the Fundamental Rule 22 or 22 B will not be applicable when a Government servant who is appointed to another post through TNPSC by direct recruitment. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the reasoning in the above said impugned proceedings, dated 28.06.2019, is contrary to the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.1580, (Education Department), dated 18.10.1969, which provides for protection of last drawn pay of a teaching staff in the previous aided school after he joins another aided school. 5.The further contention of the petitioner is that the condition which was provided for grant of such pay protection was that both the posts must carry identical pay scale. In the present case, it is not in dispute that both the posts, namely, P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), carry the same pay scale. In another order of the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988, a Teacher resigning from one Anglo-Indian school and joining another aided school, pay protection has been provided. When pay protection envisaged in the above said Government order, in respect of transfer of teachers from one aided school to another aided school and pay protection with respect to teacher, resigning from one Anglo- Indian School to another Aided school is permitted. The same analogy ought to have been adopted to the facts and circumstances of the present case to Government school. In similar circumstances, this Court in writ petition No. 14525 of 2011, vide order, dated 07.03.2018, had passed an order directing the respondents to grant pay protection along with arrears of differential pay and other attendant benefits by relying G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No. 1580, dated 18.10.1969. Hence, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition seeking to grant pay protection. 6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that as per Ruling (6) under Fundamental Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to claim to fix his pay in the Government Service on the date of Commencement of his service by taking the pay he had last drawn in his earlier service in a Private Aided School and joined duty as a fresh direct recruit in Government school. The petitioner has not cited any order or Rule of the Government to entertain his claim. The petitioner has not cited any order or Rule of the Government to entertain his claim. The G.O.Ms.No. 1580, Education, dated 18.10.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, Education Science and Technology Department, dated 27.12.1983, are related to the pay fixation of Teachers who resigns their service in one Aided Private School including in Anglo Indian school from a post and joins in the same category of post in another aided school or Anglo-Indian School. Both the G.O.s are not stating about the teacher who resigns aided private school and joins in Government school in the same category of post. Moreover, the said G.O.s were passed nearly 50 years / 35 years ago. The said two G.O.s will be applicable to who resigned in one aided school and joined in another aided school. The petitioner was fully aware that his initial pay in the Government service shall be fixed at minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to the post on the date of joining duty in Government school as direct recruit. Knowingly that he could not carry his pay last drawn before leaving the service from aided school to the post in Government school, he has opted to join the Government school. Therefore, after joining the Government School he cannot seek the salary he received from the aided school. 7. Moreover the petitioner on his own resigned the said post and he was relied from the service by the management. The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, did not issue relieving order, since he is not competent to issue relieving order. He has only granted approval for the relieving order passed by the management of the school. In G.O.Ms.No.992, Education, dated 22.06.1979, Government has permitted to count the services rendered in different kinds managements in the same post to award selection grade and special grade in that post. Therefore, the petitioner was granted selection grade in the post of Post Graduate Teacher on 01.06.2006 to 21.09.2012. The period rendered in consolidated pay service was not taken for calculating selection grade. 8. As per clarifications issued by the Government in Letter No. 14483/CMPC/2011-1, dated 05.01.2012, Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs. 15600-39100+GP 5700 shall be admissible only to those Post Graduate Teachers who were awarded selection grade prior to 01.01.2006 and to the Teachers who have obtained revised scale of pay on the subsequent date between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2019. 8. As per clarifications issued by the Government in Letter No. 14483/CMPC/2011-1, dated 05.01.2012, Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs. 15600-39100+GP 5700 shall be admissible only to those Post Graduate Teachers who were awarded selection grade prior to 01.01.2006 and to the Teachers who have obtained revised scale of pay on the subsequent date between 01.01.2006 and 31.05.2019. The date of selection grade to the petitioner is 01.06.2016. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the said scale of pay. Hence, the scale of pay was correctly fixed. The Government has already formulated Ruling 6 under Rule 22B of Fundamental Rules, that in case of Government servant already in service in a post is appointed to another post through TNPSC by direct recruitment or when the mode of his appointment to the new post is by direct recruitment, the Government servant concerned should be allowed to draw the minimum time scale of pay as provided in the service rules relating to such appointments and fixation of pay under Fundamental Rule 22 or 22B is not admissible. Hence, the 3rd respondent citing Ruling 6 under fundamental rule 22B passed the impugned order, dated 28.06.2019 and rejected the claim of the petitioner. 9. Further, the respondents submitted that in the G.O.s relied on by the petitioner, there is no whisper in the direct recruitment about the Government service. Hence, the said G.O.s cannot be relied on. The judgment relied on by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.14525 of 2011 is on a different footing. Since in the present case, previous service of the petitioner is not Government service but aided private school service. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Heard Mr.L.P.Maurya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that already the issue is dealt with in few writ petitions and the claim of the employees were allowed. And relied on the order passed in W.P.No.6714 of 2018, wherein the Learned Single Judge has relied on the Fundamental Rule 22(B) and has held that the petitioner is entitled to as per FR 22(B). And relied on the order passed in W.P.No.6714 of 2018, wherein the Learned Single Judge has relied on the Fundamental Rule 22(B) and has held that the petitioner is entitled to as per FR 22(B). The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied on the order passed in W.P.No.21520 of 2019, wherein the Learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3868 of 2019, dated 16.10.2020 and has passed an order, dated 15.09.2022, allowing the writ petition. Likewise, in W.P.(MD)No.452 of 2016, the Learned Single Judge has relied on the order passed in W.P.No.31114 of 2013, dated 16.08.2017. Likewise in W.P.No.14525 of 2011 vide order dated 07.03.2018 and W.P.No.32645 of 2018 vide order dated 16.07.2019, the Learned Single Judge relied on G.O.Ms.No.367 Educational, Science and Technology Department dated 30.03.1984. In the above said cases, the petitioner therein was serving in a private aided school, subsequently, participated in the direct recruitment and was selected and posted in Government school. In the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3868 of 2019, it is stated that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to aided schools. The writ petitions and the writ appeal cited supra have held that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the Private Aided School. 12. But the fact remains that the Fundamental Rules are “not applicable” to the Private Aided Schools. The Fundamental Rules are applicable to the Government Servants alone. The Teachers who are serving in Private Aided Schools are “not Government Servants at all”. Hence, the fundamental rules are not applicable to the Teachers who are serving in private aided schools. Under Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules, it is stated that FR are applicable to government servants who are paid from the “Consolidated Funds of the State” and the relevant portion is culled out hereunder: “2. The Fundamental Rules apply, subject to the provisions of Rule 3, to all Government servants paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State and to any other class of Government servants to which Government may by general or special order declare them to be applicable. The Government may, in relation to service, under their administrative control, other than All India Services, make rules modifying or replacing any of the Fundamental Rules: 3. The Government may, in relation to service, under their administrative control, other than All India Services, make rules modifying or replacing any of the Fundamental Rules: 3. Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided by or under the rules, these rules do not apply to Government servants whose conditions of service are governed by Army or Marine Regulations” The FR further states that the rules may be applicable to any government servants to which the Government declare by special order. At the cost of repetition firstly, the private aided teachers are not government servants, hence the FR is not applicable. Secondly the government has not passed any special order to include them under FR, hence FR is not applicable. 13. The Tamil Nadu Private School Regulations Act, 1973 under section 2(5) states as under: “5) "grant" means any sum of money paid as aid out of State Funds to any private school;” The new Act of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 under Section 2(c) and 2(j) has held that the grant-in-aid is paid from “State Funds”. “(c) “aided school” means a school receiving any aid as grant out of the State funds to meet its expenses; (j) “grant” means any sum of money paid as aid out of the State funds to any private school;” From the above definition it would be evident that the payment is not from the “Consolidated Funds”. And the payment is through funds of the State. From the above definition of the Fundamental Rules and the Private School Regulations Act it would be evident that the Fundamental Rules are not applicable to the private aided school teachers. Therefore, the order passed in W.P.No.6714 of 2018, W.P.No.21520 of 2019, W.P.(MD)No.452 of 2016, W.P.No.31114 of 2013, W.P.No.14525 of 2011 and W.P.No.32645 of 2018 cannot be relied on. 14. From the above definition of the Fundamental Rules and the Private School Regulations Act it would be evident that the Fundamental Rules are not applicable to the private aided school teachers. Therefore, the order passed in W.P.No.6714 of 2018, W.P.No.21520 of 2019, W.P.(MD)No.452 of 2016, W.P.No.31114 of 2013, W.P.No.14525 of 2011 and W.P.No.32645 of 2018 cannot be relied on. 14. As far as the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Division Bench in W.A.No.3868 of 2019 is concerned, the subsequent Division Bench in W.A. (MD)No.627 of 2022 dated 15.07.2022 had held that the said judgment in the W.A.No.3868 of 2019 cannot be followed for various reasons and the relevant portion is culled out hereunder: “26.We are not in agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.3868 of 2019 dated 16.10.2020 for the following reasons: (i).The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in in (2017) 5 SCC Page 783 (Palure Bhaskar Rao and others -Vs- P.Ramaseshaiah and others) as referred supra has not been taken into consideration. (ii).Rule 2(b)(ii) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service relating to 50% reservation for direct recruitment has not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench. (iii).Rule-8 relating to fixation of two different periods of probation for the candidates selected through direct recruitment and transfer of service has not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench. “ Apart from the above reasons, the said Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.3868 of 2019 cannot be followed for one more reason, “(iv) Since the Fundamental Rules are not applicable to the Private Aided School was not brought to the knowledge of the Division Bench.” With great respects to the earlier judgment rendered in W.A.No.3868 of 2019, this Court is adding the aforesaid one more reason. Since the Hon’ble Bench in W.A. No.3868 of 2019 has held that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the aided schools, but as elaborately stated supra the FR is not applicable to the aided school teachers. Therefore, the subsequent Hon''ble Division Bench has held that the earlier order passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench has not taken these factors into consideration and declined to rely on the same. Hence following the subsequent Division Bench Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.627 of 2022, this Court is of the considered opinion the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No. 3868 of 2019 cannot be followed. Hence following the subsequent Division Bench Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.627 of 2022, this Court is of the considered opinion the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No. 3868 of 2019 cannot be followed. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of alleged pay protection. 15. As far as the judgments rendered in W.P.No.14525 of 2011 and W.P.No.32645 of 2018 is concerned, the Learned Single Judge had relied on the G.O.Ms.No.367 Educational, Science and Technology Department dated 30.03.1984. The said G.O. states that the appointment of Higher Grade Teacher in upgraded post of Secondary Grade Teacher is also entitled to fixation of pay under the FR22(B) and the benefits would be extended to these appointments as well, hence following the said G.O.Ms.No.367, the Learned Single Judge had directed to respondents thereunder to grant pay fixation in W.P.No.14525 of 2011 and W.P.No.32645 of 2018. But the Learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that FR is not applicable for private aided schools as stated supra. Therefore the said Judgment cannot be relied on. 16. The next contention of the petitioner is that in G.O.Ms.No.992, Education, dated 22.06.1979, Government has permitted to count the services rendered in different kinds managements in the same post to award selection grade and special grade in that post and hence the petitioner is entitled to the pay protection. This Court is of the considered opinion that the selection grade and special grade is granted for the service rendered in the said post, irrespective of the service rendered in any managements. Infact this Court has come across one such case, wherein the government has taken the service rendered in California College and granted the benefits of upgradation / selection grade. The object behind it is to take the service of the individual and grant the benefits, but that alone will not determine the scale of pay. As stated supra, the pay protection depends on various factors and the petitioner is not coming within the conditions prescribed. 17. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted if the Hon’ble Coordinated Division Bench is of the opinion that the earlier Hon’ble Division Bench has rendered a judgment which is against the rules, it ought to have referred the issue to Full Bench. 17. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted if the Hon’ble Coordinated Division Bench is of the opinion that the earlier Hon’ble Division Bench has rendered a judgment which is against the rules, it ought to have referred the issue to Full Bench. Hence the Learned Counsel further prayed that atleast this Court may refer the issue to a Larger Bench. This plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for a reason that since the earlier Hon’ble Division Bench had proceeded as if the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the Private Aided School Teachers and hence the earlier Division Bench Judgment ought to be termed as “peri incuriam”. Exactly for this reason only the subsequent Division Bench has held that the earlier Division Bench judgment cannot be followed and declined to follow the earlier Division Bench judgment. Since this Court is of the considered opinion that the earlier Division Bench’s judgment is peri incuriam, there is no necessity to refer the issue to a Larger Bench. 18. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the District Education Officer has relieved the petitioner from the earlier service and hence it has to be considered as “Recruitment by Transfer”. The said plea was elaborately dealt by the Hon''ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.627 of 2022 by referring to the provision of the Act and rules made thereunder. And the relevant portion is culled out hereunder: “17.A perusal of the Service Rules discloses that the post of P.G.Assistant (Chemistry) falls within Class -II of the Category No.1. The said post can either be filled through direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service or if no qualified and suitable candidates are available for appointment by method (ii) above, by recruitment by transfer from any other service. 18.A perusal of Rule 2(b)(ii) indicates that 50% of the substantiative vacancies in Class II and Class III of the service shall be filled or reserved to be filled by the direct recruitment. Thereby, indicating that the balance 50% shall be by transfer from other service. 19. A careful perusal of Rule 8 reveals that a person who has been appointed to any category by direct recruitment shall be on a probation for a period of two years on duty within a continues period of three years. Thereby, indicating that the balance 50% shall be by transfer from other service. 19. A careful perusal of Rule 8 reveals that a person who has been appointed to any category by direct recruitment shall be on a probation for a period of two years on duty within a continues period of three years. On the other hand, if he has been appointed by recruitment by transfer, he should be on probation for a period of just one year within a continues period of two years. 20. The above said service rules clearly differentiate between the persons who are appointed through direct recruitment and those who are appointed by transfer of service. 21. A perusal of appointment order of the petitioner as P.G.Assistant (Chemistry) dated 05.03.2013 clearly indicates that the appointment is through the direct recruitment. Further, the probation has been fixed in Clause 6 of the appointment order for a period of three years as per Rule 8(a) meant for candidate appointed through direct recruitment. The pleadings in the writ petition in Paragraph No.4 clearly reveals that the petitioner had joined as P.G.Assistant on 10.06.2013 and he had completed his probation on 09.06.2015 namely after completing a period of two years meant for a candidate appointed through direct recruitment. 22. All the above said facts will clearly reveal that the petitioner was appointed to the post of P.G.Assistant only under the first method of recruitment meant for Class-II in the relevant Service Rules namely direct recruitment and not through the second mode namely transfer of service. 23. A perusal of Rule 2(b)(ii) in the said Service Rules indicates that 50% of the substantiative vacancies for the post of teachers in the academic subjects have to be filled up by the direct recruitment. Thereby, indicating that the balance 50% should be by way of transfer of service. Only those persons who got appointed in the said 50% meant for transfer of service can claim benefit of pay protection. Any candidate who has got selected through 50% meant for direct recruitment can never claim any pay protection based on his last drawn wages in the previous post held by him before such recruitment. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has applied for P.G.Assistant post pursuant to the paper notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board. The petitioner has got selected by participating in the competitive examination. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has applied for P.G.Assistant post pursuant to the paper notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board. The petitioner has got selected by participating in the competitive examination. The petitioner''s appointment order indicates that he has been selected and appointed through direct recruitment. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the candidates who were appointed through 50% reservation meant for the candidates appointed through transfer of service.” Admittedly the petitioner got an appointment as P.G. Assistant (Chemistry), in Government Higher Secondary School, Palakurichi, Nagapattinam on 22.09.2012, and in the appointment order under clause 5, it has been specifically mentioned that the probation would be for two years, which would be evident that the petitioner’s appointment is “Direct Recruitment” and not by “Recruitment by Transfer”. In such circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to pay protection. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Palure Bhaskar Rao and others Vs P.Ramaseshaiah and others reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page 783 has held that “Transfer” is different for “Recruitment by Transfer” and the relevant portion stated in Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 is extracted hereunder: “14.Transfer and recruitment by transfer are entirely two different concepts. No doubt transfer can be from one category to another category or within the class if the rule permits interchangeability of the categories within a class. Any other transfer both intra-category and inter-category are in fact, under law is a selection and appointment by way of a transfer from one category to another or from one class to another class or from one service to another. If it is a transfer simpliciter it conveys a different meaning and if it is a recruitment by transfer, as we have clarified above conveys a different concept altogether. The latter is a mode of selection/recruitment to a service. 15.Transfer in relation to service simply means a change of a place of employment within an organization. Such transfer being to a similar post in the same cadre and therefore, obviously such a transfer does not result in the termination of his lien in the parent cadre but recruitment by transfer is a different service concept altogether. It is a method of recruitment to a service, in the instant case to a different category in the same service initially and thereafter, to a different service altogether. It is a method of recruitment to a service, in the instant case to a different category in the same service initially and thereafter, to a different service altogether. Once an employee undergoes a transfer by way of a recruitment to a different cadre or to a different service, the employee loses his lien in the parent cadre/service. In that process, there is an induction to a new cadre and sometimes with a different type of duty. Such induction has distinct consequence on the career of the employee different from what would have been the normal course had he continued in the parent service. Thus the recruitment by transfer terminates the lien of an employee in the parent cadre/service whereas transfer simpliciter to a similar post in the same cadre results only in change of place of employment and therefore, there is no termination of lien (see.V.Jagannadha Rao Vs.State of A.P and B.Thirumal V.Ananda Sivakumar)” Based on the above judgment, it would be clear that the petitioner’s appointment cannot be construed as “recruitment by transfer”. The further claim of the petitioner that the District Education Officer, Cheranmahadevi had issued relieving order on 21.09.2012 and hence the said appointment is only “recruitment by transfer”. The petitioner totally misconstrued the approval granted to the relieving order. The school has issued the relieving order, which has been approved by the DEO, hence the same cannot be stated that the approval of relieving order is recruitment by transfer. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the relieving order can never ever be construed that the petitioner was appointed by recruitment by transfer. 20. The claim of the petitioner is to add the service rendered in private aided school and fix the scale of pay. The petitioner was receiving higher scale of pay in the private aided school. Since there was lesser payment in the Government school, the petitioner is seeking to fix the last drawn salary in the private aided school and grant pay protection. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board for P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) post in the Government school. Since it is direct recruitment and a separate process of recruitment is prescribed in the notification, the scale of pay was also fixed in the said Notification. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board for P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) post in the Government school. Since it is direct recruitment and a separate process of recruitment is prescribed in the notification, the scale of pay was also fixed in the said Notification. Even in the appointment order it is mentioned that the petitioner would be entitled to scale of pay as per G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance Department dated 01.06.2009. The petitioner very well aware that the scale of pay applicable in the Government school would be paid to the him. Against the said prescribed condition, the petitioner has turned around and claimed to fix scale of pay paid in the private aided school. If the claim of the petitioner is entertained, the persons who had participated in the same recruitment process would come forward with the same plea stating that there is pay disparity / pay anomaly and discriminatory attracting Article 14 and the Government would be forced to rewrite the contract and the government would be pushed to serious financial stress. This would further lead to another litigation wherein the other persons who were recruited in various other recruitment notification would also come forward claiming pay disparity / pay anomaly and discriminatory attracting Article 14 and there would be endless litigations. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the scale of pay prescribed in the notification for the recruitment process and in the appointment order would be applicable to the petitioner and hence, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 21. The Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, is applicable for the service rendered by the petitioner in private aided school. If it is a minority school, the institution has every right to select a person of their choice. If it is a non-minority school, the School Committee ought to be formed and the School Committee has to follow the rules of reservation and other government orders and thereafter select a person of their choice. However, the recruitment in the Government schools is entirely different and the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules / the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, are applicable, wherein rules of reservation, age and other conditions are fixed. When the petitioner was appointed in St. However, the recruitment in the Government schools is entirely different and the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules / the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, are applicable, wherein rules of reservation, age and other conditions are fixed. When the petitioner was appointed in St. Anne’s School, he was not recruited under Conditions of Service Act or the Rules thereunder, hence the petitioner cannot seek relief under the guise of pay protection. 22. The G.O.Ms.No.1580, dated 18.10.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.2357, dated 27.12.1988, cannot be made applicable, since it speaks of teachers who are transferred from one aided school to another aided school. It is not speaking about Teachers who joined through direct recruitment to Government School. The object of issuance of the said G.O.s was that the private aided schools were granted grant-in-aid under the category of salary and the schools would be paying less amount inspite of receiving grant-in-aid. It varies from school to school and hence there was necessity to pass such government orders. Moreover, when the grant-in-aid concept was introduced, consolidated amount was fixed for cluster of schools and it was divided among the needy school and it varied to school to school. Hence the Government issued the said G.O.s granting pay protection to the Teachers who are transferred from one private aided school to another private aided school. But, the concept of pay protection granted under the said G.O.s, cannot be made applicable to the present case, since in the present case the facts are entirely different. Moreover, as rightly pointed out the said G.O. were issued 55 / 35 years back and at present the said G.O. are not applicable. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot rely on the said G.O. and the same is not applicable at all. 23. It is pertinent to state herein that the recruitment to teachers is only through “Teachers Recruitment Board” and in each recruitment notification the name of the post, available vacancy, applicable salary would be mentioned. To be more precise in one of the recruitment processes for the year 2003-2006, the salary was for notified as “consolidated pay” and subsequently after serving for three years in consolidated pay, they were regularized in time scale of pay. To be more precise in one of the recruitment processes for the year 2003-2006, the salary was for notified as “consolidated pay” and subsequently after serving for three years in consolidated pay, they were regularized in time scale of pay. Hence after TRB is appointed as recruitment agency for recruiting teachers the salary is mentioned in each notification and the same is applicable. The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process and having accepted the terms and conditions stated in the notification, now cannot turn around and seek to rewrite the terms of contract and seek salary which he received in Private Aided School. Therefore, on this ground also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 24. For the reasons stated supra, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.