ORDER : (R. POORNIMA, J.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to order made in Na.Ka.No.5432/AA2/2015 dated 27.05.2016 signed on 06.06.2016 passed by the 3 rd respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the 3 rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his appointment namely 04.06.2007 onwards instead of 12.06.2009 and also direct the 3 rd respondent to disburse the back wages and monetary benefits of the petitioner for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : (a) The petitioner have completed his B.P.Ed., in Annamalai University during the year 2005 and completed his M.P.Ed., in the same University during the year 2005– 07. He was appointed as Physical Education Director in Pius XI Higher Secondary School by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent School initially was a High School and thereafter, it was upgraded during the academic year 1981–82 as a Higher Secondary School. When the said school was functioning as High School two Physical Education Teachers were working. After upgradation one post of the Physical Education Teacher was upgraded as Physical Director. Due to retirement of previous incumbent, viz., A.Gracy, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director on 4.6.2007 by the Correspondent of fourth respondent School. (b) Further stated that during the period of his appointment, the total strength of student was 1439. Out of 1439, the student's strength of 9 th , 10 th , 11 th , 12 th standards was 369 + 569. As per G.O. of the School Education Department, the strength of High School and Higher Secondary School is above 400 students, then School is eligible for the post of Physical Educational Director. At the time of his appointment, strength of the High School and Higher Secondary School was above 400, therefore, the school was eligible to appoint him as a Physical Director in the above School in the academic year 2007–2008 District Education Officer scrapped the post of Physical Director as it was surplus one. At the time of his appointment, strength of the High School and Higher Secondary School was above 400, therefore, the school was eligible to appoint him as a Physical Director in the above School in the academic year 2007–2008 District Education Officer scrapped the post of Physical Director as it was surplus one. The fourth respondent therefore, sent a proposal on 25.08.2008 to the Educational Department attaching the relevant documents to show that during the period, the student strength was above 400 and requested for approval for the post of Physical Education Director and reminder was also sent on 18.09.2008. Thereafter, the second respondent sought for certain clarification, but no action was taken by the third respondent. (c) The petitioner further stated that later on 12.06.2009 after a period of one year, the third respondent approved the post of Physical Education Director of the fourth respondent school and issued G.O.4(D) No.1, School Education Department, dated 21.01.2000. (d) The petitioner further stated that he had served as Physical Education Director from the year 2007–2008, 2008–2009. He received his first salary on 13.06.2009 as the post was approved by the third respondent by order dated 12.06.2009. He had sent a detailed representation to the second respondent on 07.09.2013 and requested to approve his appointment as Physical Director from the academic year 2007–2008, in which year he was appointed. Since no action was taken on his representation, sent a reminder on 21.06.2015 requested them to approve appointment from 04.06.2007, instead of 12.06.2009 and requested to pay his back wages and monetary benefits for the period 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009. (e) Further stated that his representation was received on 21.06.2015, but no action was taken by the respondent. Therefore, he had filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11014 of 2015 to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to approve his appointment as Physical Director from the date of his appointment i.e., on 04.06.2007 instead of 12.06.2009 with all attendant benefits. The Court directed the second and third respondent to consider his representation on merits by its order dated 06.04.2016. The 3 rd respondent on receipt of the said order rejected his representation vide order dated 27.05.2016. Hence, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The Court directed the second and third respondent to consider his representation on merits by its order dated 06.04.2016. The 3 rd respondent on receipt of the said order rejected his representation vide order dated 27.05.2016. Hence, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Brief statement in the counter filed by the 3 rd respondent on behalf the 1 st and 2 nd respondents are as follows: (a) The fourth respondent school which is religious minority School under the control of RC Church has no Correspondent from 01.06.1999 to 03.01.2006 so the fourth respondent School was under the direct control of the District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai from 01.06.1999 to 03.01.2006. The new Correspondent took charge on 04.01.2006 and two Physical Education Teachers were working in their Physical Education Department of the School. As per G.O.4(D)No.1 School Education Department dated 21.01.2000 one Physical Director post was allowed to School in which total strength from standard IX to XII is more than 400. On the basis of the Government Order, the existing post of Physical Education converted into Physical Director post as the total strength of the school from IX to XII was more than 400. One A.Gracy was working in that post, she got retirement on 31.05.2006. (b) The respondents further stated that the Physical Director post was kept vacant for two years without appointing anybody from 01.06.2006 to 31.05.2008. If any post was vacant from 01.06.2006 direction would be given by Director of School Education to fill up the vacancy for the benefit of students, as such direction was issued, but no steps taken by the fourth respondent (c) The respondent further stated that if a post is kept vacant for more than one year without giving proper explanation by the Correspondent for not filling-up the vacancy, the post will be surrendered. As such, the Correspondent of the School was also informed that the post was vacant from 01.06.2006 to 31.05.2008. But no reply was given by the Correspondent of the School. Therefore, the post was surrendered to the Government and the same was informed to the Correspondent of the School immediately. (d) The respondents further stated that later, the proposal for approval of appointment was sent by the School authorities that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director from 04.06.2007, which was received in the month of September, 2008. Therefore, the post was surrendered to the Government and the same was informed to the Correspondent of the School immediately. (d) The respondents further stated that later, the proposal for approval of appointment was sent by the School authorities that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director from 04.06.2007, which was received in the month of September, 2008. The proposal was returned to the Correspondent of the School informing that the post was already surrendered. (e) The respondents further stated that the Correspondent in his letter dated 18.09.2008 requested the Director of School Education to re-allow the Physical Director post of the school which was surrendered. The Director of School Education after considering the request informed the same to the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil to allow the Physical Director post by his proceedings dated 12.06.2009. (f) The respondents further stated that the proposal was received from the Correspondent with a request to approve the appointment of Physical Director post from 04.06.2007 again. The petitioner had written M.P.Ed., examination in May, 2007 only. The result of his examination was not published on 04.06.2007 and submitted his certificate only in the month of March 2008. (g) The respondents therefore, stated that it is wrong to appoint a person who has not possess the required qualification as Physical Director as on 04.06.2007. The appointment of the petitioner by the Correspondent dated 04.06.2007 is not proper. There is no post vacant from 01.06.2006 to 11.6.2009. Even then by analysing the above mentioned details, the Teacher would have been appointed as Physical Director by the Correspondent after 18.09.2008, the date on which the Correspondent sent application requesting to re-allow the post. The approval of appointment of Physical Director post was allowed from 12.06.2009 by the District Educational Officer. (h) The Petitioner was not submitted the degree certificate M.P.Ed., on 04.06.2007. The post of Physical Director was surrendered to the Directorate of School Education during the academic year 2007 itself. The Correspondent requested the Directorate of School Education to re-allot this post. Therefore, the post was allotted by the Joint Director of School Education by his proceedings Mu.Mu.No.95567/LW5/E1/08 dated 07.04.2009. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally wrong and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either and perused the materials available on record. 5. Therefore, the post was allotted by the Joint Director of School Education by his proceedings Mu.Mu.No.95567/LW5/E1/08 dated 07.04.2009. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally wrong and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel on either and perused the materials available on record. 5. As per the contention of the petitioner, he was appointed by Physical Director on 04.06.2007 by the Correspondent of the fourth respondent School. He Further submitted that during the period of his appointment, the total strength of the students was 1439, out of 1439, the students strength of 9 th , 10 th , 11 th , 12 th standards, 369+569. He further stated that the strength of High School and Higher Secondary School strength is above 400, then such School is eligible for the post of Physical Educational Director. The petitioner enclosed the details of 11 th standard students as on 01.08.2000 was 1246. 6. The Correspondent of the Pius XI Higher Secondary School in his letter dated 25.08.2008 addressed to the respondent stated that the post of Physical Director was taken back the District Educational Officer, vide letter in by stating that the total number of higher secondary studies was below 400, but during the year 2008, the total number of higher secondary to first year student was 238 and the second year student strength was 208. Therefore, totally 446 students were studying in the Higher Secondary School and requested to sanction the post of Physical Director which was already taken back in the year 2007. Further stated that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director from 06.10.2006 and he was working satisfactorily and sent a request to approve the same to the District Educational Officer. 7. Another letter dated 18.09.2008 of the Correspondent clearly stated that the total number of students who were studying from 9 th standard to 12 th standard from 2006- 2007, 2007-2008 were above 400, which shows that the students strength from the 9 th standard to 12 th standard were above 400, during the year 2006 – 2007 and 2007 – 2008. 8. Based on the request made by the Correspondent, the School Educational Director in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. ordered that the post which was surrendered during the 2007–2008 directed to be continued and to record the same in the school register. 9. 8. Based on the request made by the Correspondent, the School Educational Director in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. ordered that the post which was surrendered during the 2007–2008 directed to be continued and to record the same in the school register. 9. Now the respondents stated that the petitioner is not qualified for the appointment as Physical Director post on 04.06.2007. 10. On verification, it reveals from the record submitted by the petitioner shows that the petitioner completed his M.P.Ed., degree in May 2007 on campus program and secured in first class and the professional certificate was issued on 03.08.2007 by the Annamalai University. 11. Now the question arise that whether the petitioner possessed required qualification as on the date of appointment. The petitioner has completed his M.P.Ed., degree course during May 2007 and he was appointed from 01.06.2007. 12. The Correspondent of the concerned School in his letter dated 18.09.2008 admitted that during the year 2007–2008, the total strength of students from 9 th to 12 th standards was above 400, and during the year 2008-2009, also it was above 400. Therefore, the School was eligible to appoint Physical Director from the year 2007–2008. Considering the relevant, the Chief Educational Officer in his proceedings dated: 12.06.209 accepted the request of the correspondent and allowed the post of Physical Director to be continued. Therefore, the petitioner sent representation that he is entitled to get his remuneration from the year 2007-2008, during which the year, the School students strength was above 400. It is proved that the School possessed the required students during the said year. He is also possessed required qualification as on date of appointment which is reveal from the provisional Certificate issued by the Annamalai University. Therefore the petitioner is entitle for the relief as prayed for. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 27.05.2016 is quashed. The third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e., on 04.06.2007 and the third respondent is directed to disburse the back wages and monetary benefits of the petitioner for the period from 04.06.2007 to 11.06.2009 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.