The management of a private school has no right to file a revision petition against an order of the Appellate Authority reinstating a teacher who was terminated from service without the prior approval of the competent authority.

Kanakaraj, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.No.14894 of 1994 is the appellant in the writ appeal. His case in the writ petition is as follows:-

He completed the Plus Two Examination as well as the Diploma Course in Teacher Training and applied for the appointment as teacher in the third respondent School. He was duly selected and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent School, which is a recognised aided School. According to him, the third respondent/Management had taken signatures in certain blank papers and utilised the same as a resignation letter. Consequently, after the Summer Vacation in June, 1991 he was prevented fr om entering the School as and from 7. 1991 treating the same as a termination of service. The appellant filed W.P.No.9459 of 1991 and this Court directed him to file an appeal before the Competent Authority as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called “the Act”). He filed an appeal on 27. 1991 to the second respondent who is the prescribed Appellate Authority. The second respondent allowed the appeal, but without giving opportunity to th e third respondent-Management. Consequently, W.P.No.14623 of 1991 was filed by the third respondent/Management and it was allowed and remanded back to the second respondent. On remand the second respondent gave notice to the third respondent/Management and allowed the appeal directing the management to reinstate the appellant on or before 18. 1992. As against the said direction, the third respondent had filed a civil suit, O.S.No.690 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, and it was rightly dismissed as not maintainable on 23. 1994. In spite of all the above proceedings, the third respondent/Management did not reinstate the appellant and consequently the appellant came up with the present writ petition seeking a direction to the third respondent to either reinstate him as Secondary Grade Teacher or in the alternative to redeploy him in some other Government School by recalling the sanctioned post from the third respondent School and alloting the same to any other needy school.

2. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the appellant had well and truly resigned his post and he was not terminated from service. The other facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are not however, disputed. It was further contended that the case of the appellant would not fall within Section 23 of the Act and therefore, his appeal to the second respondent was incompetent. It was also contended that Rule 17A introduced by G.O.Ms.No.586, dated 4. 1981 regarding the validity of the resignation, should have been followed. Lastly, it was contended that the third respondent had preferred a revision petition before the Joint Director of Elementary Education and therefore, the order of the second respondent could not be enforced.

3. On the above pleadings, learned single Judge who disposed of the writ petition on 9. 1995 gave the following directions, operative portion of which is as follows:- “The respondents are directed to ascertain as to whether any revision petition has in fact been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8. 1992 and if the same is pending, dispose of the same in accordance with law on merits, after due notice to the parties, If, on the other hand, no such revision has been filed, the authorities may take action in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1664 dated 9. 1978 and provide for direct payment to the teacher as also transfer the petitioner along with the post to any other needy school”.

4. In the present appeal, the contention is that no revision was maintainable against the order of the second respondent and in any event, there was no revision pending before the Government of Tamil Nadu. It was further contended that the pendency of a revision petition cannot be a bar to the implementation of the order of the second respondent.

5. Th