JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for theentire records pertaining to the order passed by the sixth respondentin No.EDN/K/CM/FC4/195/2023 dated 08.06.2023 as well as the orderin No.EDN/K/CM/FC4/211/2023 dated 10.06.2023 and quash the sameand consequently direct the sixth respondent to permit the petitionerto serve as a Post Graduate English Teacher in his school as per theorder of the sixth respondent in No.EDN/K/CM/FC4/172/2023 dated05.06.2023.) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of aWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by thesixth respondent in No.EDN/K/CM/FC4/195/2023 dated 08.06.2023 aswell as the order in No.EDN/K/CM/FC4/211/2023 dated 10.06.2023and consequently to direct the sixth respondent to permit thepetitioner to serve as a Post Graduate English Teacher in his school asper the order of the sixth respondent in No.EDN/K/CM/FC4/172/2023dated 05.06.2023. 2.The petitioner is an aggrieved person due to the changeof seniority in the list prepared in the cadre of P.G Assistant Teacheremployed under the category of self-finance in the Schools being rununder the governance of the corporate management of Roman Catholicin the Diocese of Kuzhithurai. The petitioner is a qualified candidate forholding the post of P.G. Assistant in the subject of English. She wasappointed as a P.G Assistant Teacher in R.C. Higher Secondary School,Konamkadu under the category of "Self Finance". As far as theappointment of the teaching staff in the schools controlled by the R.C.Diocese is concerned, they are aided institutions separately and also inthe category of self-finance appointees are being recruited in thesanctioned vacancies. In addition to that, the fifth respondentmaintains a seniority list, which would be otherwise called a waitinglist. Those appointees appointed in both the said category would beplaced in the said list and based on which, the seniority of them wouldbe fixed and as and when the regular vacancy arises, the name of thesenior shown in the list of self-finance appointees would be picked upand after following the rules of the Government exclusively made inthis regard, those posts would be filled up. 3. In order to streamline the said process, separately, rulesnamely, "Rules and Regulations for schools in the corporatemanagement of the R.C. Diocese of Kottar" has been framed and afterthe bifurcation of Kulithurai Diocese, the said rule was renamed asrules for the R.C. Diocese of Kulithurai. 3. In order to streamline the said process, separately, rulesnamely, "Rules and Regulations for schools in the corporatemanagement of the R.C. Diocese of Kottar" has been framed and afterthe bifurcation of Kulithurai Diocese, the said rule was renamed asrules for the R.C. Diocese of Kulithurai. In terms of the said rules as faras filling up the vacancies from the members of the same family, it wasmade clear in the said rule that only after a gap of five years from theearlier appointment of the person from one particular family, anotherperson could be considered and even for doing so, the candidateswhose names available in the category of self-finance seniority listcould be taken for such consideration. That apart, the said rules clearlymandate that once a person from a family has been appointed, theother person from the very same family whose name is found availablein the seniority list would go to the end of such list in other words, inview of the appointment given to the same family members,automatically, later members name would go to the bottom in theseniority list prepared under the category of self-financing teachers. 4. As far as this case is concerned, the petitioner''s namehas been found in the seniority list 2019-2020 in Serial No.5. After theappointment of the teachers who were in serial Nos.1 and 2, as ofnow, the petitioner''s position is in serial No.3. Admittedly there arethree vacancies which would arise in the schools namely (i) St. JosephHigher Secondary School, Thiruthuvapuram, Kanyakumari District, (ii)St.Francis Higher Secondary School, Vengodu and (iii) St.Mary''s HigherSecondary School, Melpalai in view of the reason that P.G. Assistantworking in the said schools are likely to attain superannuation within aperiod of two months. Knowing the same, the fifth respondent and themembers of his education council, in order to appoint the eighthrespondent, who is in the position of serial No.12 in the seniority list ason 17.05.2023, have convened a board meeting and for the reasonsbest known to them, have prepared minutes by recommending hername to give her appointment in the post of P.G Assistant (English).This exercise has been done despite the rejection of their proposal bythe sixth respondent, who actually rejected the proposal for the reasonthat the said recommendation would not be in line with the aforesaidrules framed exclusively with regard to the recruitment of Teachers inthe schools of R.C Diocese. 5. 5. In fact, the said V.Edal Queen ie., eighth respondent inview of the reason that her husband was appointed as a teacher in theself-finance category on 02.01.2013 and subsequently in a regularvacancy and on such right from 01.04.2015, he has been working as ateacher of Physical Education, the moment her husband has beenappointed in the regular vacancies, the name of the said V.Edal Queenwould be automatically placed in the bottom of the seniority list andher appointment can be considered only after a period of five yearsthat too by following the seniority. On a previous occasion in the year2019, when the eighth respondent made an attempt to get anappointment, her request was rejected by clearly informing her thatshe cannot be appointed as she has lost her right of being present inthe same position in the seniority list in view of her husband''sappointment. However, by ignoring all the said Rules as well as theprevious rejection, now the fifth respondent is very particular aboutgiving effect to the conclusion of the said board meeting which tookplace on 17.05.2023. Hence, with a view to stopping such illegalities,after sending a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 in the form ofa legal notice, the petitioner approached this Court in a Writ Petition inW.P.(MD)No.13084 of 2023, seeking to stop the proposal of offeringappointment in favour of the eighth respondent and the same ispending before this Court. 6. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the said WritPetition before this Court, on 05.06.2023, through an order inNo.EDN/K/CM/FC4/172/2023, the petitioner was appointed as PostGraduate English Teacher in St. Mary''s Higher Secondary School,Melpalai and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was directed totake charge on 01.07.2023. While the petitioner was under the fondhope that the said order would not be disturbed, shockingly the sixthrespondent for the sake of the eighth respondent has transferred oneMary Asha to the said place. Thereafter, the sixth respondent changedthe seniority list by placing the eighth respondent in serial No.3 fromserial No.12. As a result of which, the petitioner''s seniority has beenbrought down to the place of serial No.6. Subsequently, through anthe sixth respondent appointed the eighthrespondent in the post of P.G English Teacher at St. Joseph Higher Secondary School, Thiruthuvapuram. Thereupon, the sixth respondentcancelled the appointment of the petitioner, vide impugned order,dated 08.06.2023. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed. 7. Subsequently, through anthe sixth respondent appointed the eighthrespondent in the post of P.G English Teacher at St. Joseph Higher Secondary School, Thiruthuvapuram. Thereupon, the sixth respondentcancelled the appointment of the petitioner, vide impugned order,dated 08.06.2023. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition came to be filed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionervehemently contended that the impugned order is liable to be quashedfor the following reasons:- (i) The impugned order has been passed by the sixthrespondent violating the Rules and Regulations of the Schools in thecorporate management of RC Diocese of Kulithurai. The sixthrespondent has purposely cancelled the petitioner''s appointment,dated 05.06.2023, vide impugned order, dated 08.06.2023, followingwhich on 10.06.2023, the sixth respondent appointed the eighthrespondent as a Post Graduate English Teacher at St.Joseph''s HigherSecondary School, Thirithuvapuram. (ii) The eighth respondent has been appointed to asanctioned post at St.Joesph''s Higher Secondary School,Thirithuvapuram, by superseding all the Rules and Regulations asmandated by the corporate management of RC Diocese of Kuzhithuraiand by overlooking the factum that he is not entitled to claim forappointment within a period of five years from the date of appointmentof her husband under the same corporate management, in view of thefact that on her husband being appointed under the corporatemanagement, her seniority would automatically be placed in thebottom of the seniority list. As a result of which, the attempt of thesixth respondent to place her in serial No.3 of the seniority list andplacing the petitioner in serial No.6 is per se illegal. 8. In addition to that, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the sixthrespondent has been contrary to the Code of Canon Law whichmandates under Canon 428 as follows:- “Canon 428 – 1.When a see is vacant,nothing is to be altered. 2. Those who temporarily care for thegovernance of the diocese are forbidden to doanything which can be prejudicial in some way tothe diocese or episcopal rights. They, andconsequently all others, are specifically prohibited,whether personally or through another, fromremoving or destroying any documents of thediocesan curia or from changing anything in them.” 9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondents 5 to 7 would submit that the Roman Catholic Diocese ofKottar, Kanyakumari District is a registered Society and a recognizedreligious minority. Thereafter, for administrative reasons, the Dioceseis bifurcated as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar and RomanCatholic Diocese of Kuzhithurai. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondents 5 to 7 would submit that the Roman Catholic Diocese ofKottar, Kanyakumari District is a registered Society and a recognizedreligious minority. Thereafter, for administrative reasons, the Dioceseis bifurcated as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar and RomanCatholic Diocese of Kuzhithurai. The Diocese owns and administersseveral recognized educational institutions in the revenue District ofKanyakumari. The Rev.Bishop is the Educational Agency and theGeneral Manager of all the educational institutions. He appoints thecorporate manager for the administration of the Schools and theCorrespondents for each institution. He constitutes the EducationBoard for evolving policies related to the Ministry of education and forthe selection of staff. The diocese is currently running 52 aided Schoolsfalling under the jurisdiction of the respondents 5 to 8. All the Schoolsare recognized Christian Religious Minority Educational Institutions interms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. As per the Rules and10/29Regulations of the Diocese, the appointments both in the aided andself-financing sections in the Schools run by the Diocese are made outfrom out of the waiting list maintained by the Diocese. The members ofthe Diocese who possesses education qualification will enrolthemselves in the Diocese in their respective specialization foremployment in the Schools under the Diocese. When any vacancyarises in any School under the Diocese, the management appoints theperson from the waiting list as per their seniority. The date ofenrollment in the concerned subject after completion of theeducational qualification shall be the criteria for placing in the waitingcum seniority list. Considering the same, as far as the family membersgetting employment simultaneously, a gap of 5 years is maintained forproviding employment to the next family member despite the seniority.For instance, if a husband gets employment either in self-finance or inaided section, even though his wife is at the next top in the seniority,she will not be given employment till the completion of five years. Tillthe completion of five years, the next juniors will be considered foremployment. However, it is not correct as submitted by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that her seniority will be placed at thebottom of the seniority list, but her seniority will be placed in the sameposition, and she will be considered as top in the seniority on11/29completion of five years for employment. However, it is not correct as submitted by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that her seniority will be placed at thebottom of the seniority list, but her seniority will be placed in the sameposition, and she will be considered as top in the seniority on11/29completion of five years for employment. Hence, the contention raisedby the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not legallysustainable and moreover, the Rules and Regulations for Schools incorporate management of RC Diocese of Kottar is not a statute. Thoseregulations are a self-regulatory domestic arrangement which is beingmaintained by the corporate management to keep the house in order,and the list maintained by virtue of the regulation also does not haveany statutory value. In fact, precisely, it is a pre-employment waitinglist which is evolved for the purpose of the in-house administrativeconvenience of the diocese concerned. 10. Heard Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, who took me along the various contentions raised by him inhis affidavit, Mr.N.RameshArumugam, learned Government Advocate,appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.IsaacMohanlal, learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 and anxiouslyperused the materials available on record. 11. As far as the controversy in the present Writ Petition isconcerned, the crux of the issue is as to the maintaining of theseniority between the eighth respondent and the petitioner. The eighthrespondent, after completing her post-graduation in English and B.Ed''scourse enrolled herself for the post of PG Assistant (English) in theyear 2009-2010. She was registered under Registration No.5828. Thepetitioner got enrolled for the very same subject only in the next year,namely 2010-2011 under Registration No.6537. As such, only thename of the eighth respondent is found in the waiting list for the year2009-2010 and in the waiting list for the year 2010-2011, the eighthrespondent was placed in serial No. 21, while the petitioner was placedin serial No.33. However, the husband of the eighth respondent,namely Augustus Singh was enrolled and appointed as a PhysicalEducation Teacher at RC High School, Chemparuthivilai on 02.01.2013.Later on 01.04.2015, he was accommodated in the aided post at St.Peter''s Higher Secondary School, Chekkal. In view of the employmentof the eighth respondent''s husband, even though vacancies arose inthe self-financing section in several Schools under the management inthe post of PG Assistant (English), the eighth respondent was notconsidered for employment and her next juniors were considered forsuch employment in tune with the prevailing Rules and Regulations ofthe Diocese. In view of the employmentof the eighth respondent''s husband, even though vacancies arose inthe self-financing section in several Schools under the management inthe post of PG Assistant (English), the eighth respondent was notconsidered for employment and her next juniors were considered forsuch employment in tune with the prevailing Rules and Regulations ofthe Diocese. As a result of which, the juniors of the eighth respondent,namely one Mary Asha was appointed on 03.06.2019 in St. LawrenceHigher Secondary School, Madathattuvilai and then one JiniS.Kumari13/29was appointed in the self-financing section on 24.06.2013 in St.Peter''sHigher Secondary School, Chekkal and the petitioner herein wasappointed as PG Assistant (English) in self-finance section in R.CHigher Secondary School, Konamcadu on 09.06.2014. The eighthrespondent was given employment as PG Assistant (English) in theself-finance section in St.Francis Higher Secondary School, Vavarai onlyon 02.01.2019 ie., in the vacancy which arose after the completion of5 years from the date of employment of her husband. During thoseperiod of five years, the eighth respondent continued in the job in thewaiting list and however, the said factum was not objected to by thepetitioner all through these years till the filing of the Writ Petition inW.P(MD)No.13084 of 2023. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is that she wasappointed as a Post Graduate English Teacher under the corporatemanagement of the R.C Diocese of Kuzhithurai at St. Mary''s HigherSecondary School, Mepalai on 05.06.2023. The said appointment orderwas passed by the sixth respondent. However, within three days of thesaid order, due to the change in the person who held the post ofcorporate manager, the said appointment order, dated 05.06.2023given to the petitioner was revoked on 08.06.2023 which is impugnedherein on the ground that the decision of appointing the petitioner isnot supported by the decision of the corporate education board and theExecutive Committee. In furtherance of the same, vide anotherimpugned order, dated 10.06.2023, the new corporate managerappointed the eighth respondent as a Post Graduate English Teacherunder the corporate management of the R.C Diocese of Kuzhithurai atSt. Joseph''s Higher Secondary School, Thirithuvapuram, ie., in ansanctioned post. After the revocation of the appointment of thepetitioner on 08.06.2023, she was further appointed as P.G AssistantEnglish in a surplus post in St. Lawrence Higher Secondary School atMadathattvilai on 01.07.2023 and the petitioner also, on receipt of thesaid order, on 03.07.2023 joined in the said post on the very same day. 13. After the revocation of the appointment of thepetitioner on 08.06.2023, she was further appointed as P.G AssistantEnglish in a surplus post in St. Lawrence Higher Secondary School atMadathattvilai on 01.07.2023 and the petitioner also, on receipt of thesaid order, on 03.07.2023 joined in the said post on the very same day. 13. The entire commotion in the matter of appointment ofthe petitioner in a sanctioned post in the school at Melpalai on05.06.2023 and thereafter, revoking the appointment on 08.06.2023and further, appointing the petitioner on 01.07.2023 in a surplus postat Madathattvilai is a result of the arm twist between the formercorporate manager of Roman Catholic Schools Diocese of Kuzhithuraiand the Arch Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of KuzhithuraiatMadurai. The Arch Bishop of Madurai is the ultimate authority and theApostolic Administrator of Roman Catholic Diocese of Kuzhithurai. Inthe verge of the irregularities committed by the former corporatemanager of Catholic Schools, one Rev.Fr.M.Callistus, in the matter ofappointment of the petitioner and many others, Rev.Fr.M.Callistus wasremoved from the post of corporate manager by Most.Rev. Archbishopof Madurai, by his communication, dated 07.06.2023 and in the saidcommunication various irregularities and breaches committed by theformer corporate manager was brought on record. Recording theirregularities committed by the former corporate manager, within threedays of issuing an appointment order to the petitioner on 05.06.2023,a new corporate manager one Rev.Fr.S.MariaRajendran came to beappointed as the corporate manager (Secretary cum Treasurer) of allthe institutions under the corporate management of Catholic Schools ofthe Diocese of Kuzhithurai. Only after the change of hands, as far asthe post of corporate management is concerned, the impugned order,dated 08.06.2023 revoking the order of appointment of the petitionercame to be passed and in furtherance to the same, the furtherimpugned order of the appointment of the eighth respondent as PostGraduate English Teacher in St. Joseph''s Higher Secondary School,Thirithuvapuram was also passed. 14. Precisely, the entire tale of appointment of thepetitioner and revocation of her appointment and further appointmentof the petitioner in a surplus post at Madathattvilai and appointment ofthe eighth respondent in a sanctioned post at Thirithuvapuram andother decisions of the previous board and the final decision of the Rev.Arch Bishop of Madurai revolves around the various internal tusslesand diocese politics of the diocese of Kuzhithurai. No doubt therevocation of the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated08.06.2023 has been passed by the newly appointed corporatemanager without putting the petitioner to notice and without giving heran opportunity of hearing. However, the learned senior counselappearing for the respondents 5 to 7 vehemently submitted that thequestion of violation of principles of natural justice will never arise forthe reason that none of the Rules and Regulations which is claimed tohave been violated by the present corporate manager has anysignificance of that of a statute and all those regulations are only selfregulatorydomestic arrangements of the Roman Catholic Diocese ofKuzhithurai and the pre-employment waitlist is also a waiting list whichhas no significance beyond the purpose of maintaining a list of themembers of the diocese which is maintained as a ready reference forrecruiting appropriate staffs in various appropriate posts in thecorporate management Roman Catholic Schools. Hence, the petitionercannot claim any right on the basis of the regulations of the Diocese ofKuzhithurai and on the basis of the pre-employment waitlist. In short,this case is a typical example of washing the dirty linen of the diocesepolitics of the diocese of Kuzhithurai in public. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to7 rely on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4382 of 2010,dated 04.03.2010 (W.QueenSheeba Vs. The Joint Director andothers), wherein it has been held as follows:- “6.Even in respect of Christian minoritySchool, since right to manage the School vest withthe management, it is open to them to appoint anycandidate, who has the necessary qualifications.” 16. In view of the said order, this Court is of the consideredview that since the issue involved revolves around the factum ofappointment and revocation of appointment and appointment of thepetitioner and eighth respondent in various Christian minority schoolswhose right is guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution ofIndia, the right to manage the school vest with management and it isopen for them to appoint any candidate, who has the necessaryqualification and the petitioner has no vested right of claimingappointment on the basis of the violation of the Rules and Regulationsof the R.C Diocese of Kuzhithurai. This Court is also in agreement withthe order passed by this Court in the aforesaid order that, the policy ofthe church in giving preference to any particular person is entirely aprivate matter and whoever is aggrieved by the decisions or thepolicies of the church could raise such an issue only before theconcerned forum of the said diocese or church and no remedy could besought for before this Court by filing a Writ Petition claiming to enforceher church/diocese policy by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. 17.However, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by theHonourable Division Bench of this Court in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.136 of2022 in W.A(MD)No.1115 of 2019, dated 06.06.2023 (TheSecretary and others Vs. I.JesuPraba and others), wherein, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court has categorically held as follows:- “10. However, we will not be justified insummarily dismissing this review application on thatground. The primary argument of the learned counselappearing for the appointee is that the managementsof minority schools have the fundamental right underArticle 30 of the Constitution of India to makeappointments without getting prior permission from thedepartment. Her contention is that though the State isthe pay master, the principle “he who pays the pipercalls the tune” will not apply. The minority schools haveso far been successful in exempting themselves fromthe purview of the Right of Children to Free andCompulsory Education Act 2009. Their teachers neednot be TET-qualified. The requirement thatappointments have to be made as per communal rosterto achieve social justice does not apply to minorityinstitutions. Though grant-in-aid comes out of publicexchequer, appointments are often made as per theseniority list maintained by the respective dioceses.Petitions have been filed by aggrieved individualscontending that their local church has breached theseniority principle. It is a fact that the dioceses havebeen maintaining registers akin to the districtemployment exchanges. In other words, themanagements need not invite eligible and meritoriouscandidates from the open market. Even a cursorysurvey would reveal that these appointees areinvariably from the same religion or evendenomination. Of course, Article 30 of the Constitutionof India will be projected as a shield. However, certaindevelopments have recently taken place. Thedepartment is faced with the issue of surplus teachersand their deployment. Corporate managements makeappointments if a vacancy arises in a sanctioned postin one school, even if they have surplus teachers in theother schools. Of course, Article 30 of the Constitutionof India will be projected as a shield. However, certaindevelopments have recently taken place. Thedepartment is faced with the issue of surplus teachersand their deployment. Corporate managements makeappointments if a vacancy arises in a sanctioned postin one school, even if they have surplus teachers in theother schools. This issue is presently pending beforethe Hon''ble Supreme Court and interim orders havebeen granted. We, therefore, hold that themanagements can fill up vacancies in teaching postsonly after getting prior permission from thedepartment. At the same time, we are conscious thatthe department often keep such proposals pending foran unreasonably long period. Since the Governmentitself is a party to this petition, we direct thedepartment to pass order on any proposal that may besubmitted by the managements within a period of tenweeks from the date of receipt of the proposals.Speaking order should be passed by the competentauthority.” 18. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for therespondents 5 to 7 vehemently contended that the observation madeby the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order isonly an obiter dicta, this Court is of the considered view that theoperative portion of the said Judgment is more of the rule of law onwhich the said decision itself is based and hence a ratio decidendi. Thecase which is referred to by the Honourable Division Bench of thisCourt in the aforesaid Review Application is with respect to the SpecialLeave Petition filed as against the Judgment of the Honourable DivisionBench of this Court in another batch of cases in W.A(MD)Nos.76, 225and 341 etc., of 2019, dated 31.03.2021, which relates to approval ofappointments of Teachers refused by the competent authority, on theground that there are surplus Teachers in other Schools under thesame Managements in Minority Schools. The Hon''ble Division Bench ofthis Court in the said batch while dealing with the issue of surplusteachers and deployment has provided with a compendium of Schedulein the operative portion from “a” to “v” which has to be strictlyfollowed and adhered. The Hon''ble Apex Court is also pleased not tointerfere with the said compendium from “a” to “v” except ''i” dealingwith sanction of staff grant. The Hon''ble Apex Court is also pleased not tointerfere with the said compendium from “a” to “v” except ''i” dealingwith sanction of staff grant. Hence, I reiterate that the operativeportion of the Judgment in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.136 of 2022 inW.A(MD)No.1115 of 2019 cannot be negated as sheer obiter dicta.Hence, the impugned appointment of the eighth respondent, dated10.06.2023 made by the sixth respondent without getting priorpermission from the department concerned is per se illegal and thisCourt is inclined to quash the impugned order, dated 10.06.2023, bywhich, the eighth respondent was appointed. 19.In view of the above, the impugned order, dated10.06.2023 passed by the sixth respondent is quashed. 20.As far as the other impugned order, dated 08.06.2023is concerned, by which the appointment of the petitioner, dated05.06.2023 was revoked, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondents 5 to 7 relied on the case of Dr.J.Shashidhara PrasadVs. Governor of Karnataka and another reported in (1999) 1 SCC422, the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:- “11....The question was, whether therespondent therein was entitled to have an opportunityof hearing before the order of cancellation was made.The Court answered the question in negative. TheCourt answered the question in negative. The Courtalso referred to the judgment in Shrawan Kumar JhaVs. State of Bihar reported in 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 330and observed thus: "A Division Bench of this Court comprisingKuldip Singh and K. Ramaswamy, JJ. observedthat the candidates should have been given anopportunity of hearing before theirappointments were cancelled. The courtaccordingly directed the Solicitor General to askthe Secretary (Education), Government of Biharto grant an opportunity of hearing to thecandidates and to give a finding as to whetherthey were validly appointed as AssistantTeacher. The Court also ordered that if anyonehad actually worked as a Teacher, he or shewould be entitled to the salary for that period. Itis interesting to note that this Court whiledirecting that a hearing be given to thoseappointed as Assistant Teachers did not grantany relief in terms of actual appointment inpursuance to the appointment letters, Nor didthe Court order for any pecuniary benefits beinggiven to those appellants pursuant to theappointment letters. Salary, etc. were orderedto be paid only in case any one of thosecandidates had actually joined and worked." 12. The Court held that till the order ofextension of service could become operative no rightunder the order had vested in the incumbent and itwas therefore, not necessary to grant him hearingbefore the extension order was cancelled. Salary, etc. were orderedto be paid only in case any one of thosecandidates had actually joined and worked." 12. The Court held that till the order ofextension of service could become operative no rightunder the order had vested in the incumbent and itwas therefore, not necessary to grant him hearingbefore the extension order was cancelled. The Courtalso pointed out that the respondent therein may ormay not have accepted the offer and till the ordercame into force, no vested right could have arisen.Consequently, the Court held that no opportunity wasrequired to be given to the incumbent beforecancelling the said order. The principles laid down inthe aforesaid two cases will certainly apply in thepresent case and in our opinion, there was nonecessity for giving an opportunity to the appellantbefore the chancellor passed the order dated 21.8.97rescinding the earlier order dated 20.8.97.” 21.This Court is of the considered opinion that therevocation of the appointment of the petitioner vide the impugnedorder passed by the sixth respondent, dated 08.06.2023 is squarelycovered by this Apex Court Judgment. Here, in this case, the petitionerwas served with an order dated 05.06.2023 as received by her on thesame day, directing her to report for duty before the Correspondent ofSt.Mary''s Higher Secondary School, Melpalai, on 01.07.2023. However,on 08.06.2023, the impugned order revoking the order dated05.06.2023 calling the petitioner to join St.Mary''s Higher SecondarySchool, Melpalai on 01.07.2023 came to be passed. Since the order ofappointing the petitioner at St.Mary''s Higher Secondary School,Melpalai, dated 05.06.2023 could become operative only on01.07.2023 on the petitioner joining the said vacancy, any order ofrevocation passed before that would not create any vested right on thepetitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner may or may not haveaccepted the offer. Till the date of joining, the said vacancy on01.07.2023 by the petitioner no vested right would arise.Consequently, I observe that no opportunity is required to be given tothe petitioner before revocation of the appointment. Hence, theimpugned order, dated 08.06.2023 passed by the sixth respondentneed not be interfered with. It is also pertinent to mention that thepetitioner has accepted the subsequent transfer order dated01.07.2023 and is presently working as P.G Assistant in St.LawrernceHigher Secondary School, Madathattuvilai in a surplus post. 22. With the above observations and directions, this WritPetition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.