The requirement under Sec.22 of the Act 1973 to obtain prior approval before effecting the termination of service of a teacher or other person employed in a recognised private school is mandatory and not a mere formality. Failure to obtain such approval renders the order of termination illegal and ab initio void.

K.Govindarajan, J.

1. The above Writ Appeals are directed against the order of the learned Judge passed in W.P.Nos.3451, 6716 and 6187 of 1996, dated 7.3.2002.

2. The appellant-management appointed Tmt. M.Chinnathai, the 4th respondent in W.A.Nos.2630 and 2632 of 2002 as B.Ed. Assistant in and by an order dated 4.6.1987. Subsequently, she was removed from service on the basis of inefficiency and disobedience as per the proceedings dated 7.11.1988. The said order has been revoked at the request of the 4th respondent-teacher in the proceedings dated 9.3.1989. Her appointment in the order dated 4.6.1987 was approved by the 2nd respondent in the proceedings dated 31.7.1989, and consequently an order was also passed by the Inspectress of School Education in the proceedings dated 16.9.1989. Subsequently, the appellant-management sent a letter on 9.11.1989 to regularise their order passed on 9.3.1989. The 2nd respondent in the proceedings dated 3.2.1990 rejected the same on the basis that the earlier order of termination was not with the prior permission of the authorities concerned. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed an Appeal to the State Government on 3.4.1990. Meanwhile, according to the appellant-management , the 4th respondent did not turn up for duty without assigning any reason. On that basis the Appeal filed by the appellant-management dated 3.4.1990 to the Secretary to the Government, Education Department was withdrawn and the appellant appointed one Selvasundari in the said place and made a request to the 1st respondent, the Director of School Education to approve the said appointment. Since the 1st respondent-director has not passed any order, the appellant-management approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No. 10994 of 1995 and the learned Judge in the order dated 21.9.1995 directed the 1st respondent-Director of School Education to consider the representation and pass orders within four months from the date of receipt of the order. The Director, in the order dated 28.2.1996 considered the case of the appellant-management and rejected the request on the basis that the order of termination of Chinnathai was illegal and so it cannot be said that her place had fallen vacant so as to enable the appellant-management to appoint Selvasundari for the said post. Against the rejection of the appellant's request, the appellant-management filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3451 of 1996 seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent-Director of School Education dated 28.2.1996 and to direct the 1st respondent to approve the appointment of Selvasundari as B.T. Assistant.

3. In the proceedings dated 24.4.1996, the 1st respondent-director, directed the appellant-management to permit the 4th respondent-Chinnathai to discharge her duties as a teacher of the said school on the basis that the appellant-management had prevented her from performing her legitimate duties as B.T. Assistant. Challenging the said order, the appellant-management filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6187 of 1996 to quash the said order of the 1st respondent dated 24.4.1996 and also to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from compelling the petitioner therein to appoint the fourth respondent as B.T. Assistant in the petitioner-school.

4. The 4th respondent in W.A.No.2631 of 2002, was appointed as a Junior Assistant with effect from 29.11.1986 in the appellant-management. Her services were terminated with effect from 7.9.1994 on the basis that she did not attend the school without any reason. In the proceedings dated 20.9.1994, the appellant-management had sent a letter to the 2nd respondent, seeking permission to terminate the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent also sent a letter to the Inspectress of School Education dated 30.9.1994 stating that the 1st respondent has prevented her from discharging her duties as a Junior Assistant. The 1st respondents-Director of School Education in the proceedings dated 30.5.1996 directed the appellant