The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior approval for appointments in recognized private aided non-minority schools, as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and Rule 15(4)(ii)(ii)(c).

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by the second respondent declining grant of approval of petitioner's appointment as Headmistress in the third respondent school with consequential direction to approve the appointment of petitioner as Headmistress.

2. The case of the petitioner is that after passing graduation, she registered her name in the Employment Exchange in the year 1996 initially at Cuddalore, which was subsequently transferred to Madurai District Employment Exchange. A vacancy arose in the third respondent - private aided School in the cadre of Headmistress due to the retirement of the then Headmaster. The third respondent applied for permission to fill up the post and no order having been passed, the third respondent invited applications through news paper - Dinakaran, Tirunelveli edition, dated 18.6.1999. On receipt of applications, a selection committee was constituted by the third respondent and interview was held to assess the merit and ability. Considering the merit and ability, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Headmistress from 28.6.1999. Appointment order was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent on the undertaking given by the petitioner that no salary will be paid unless the appointment is approved by the department. The petitioner joined the services of the third respondent, even though she was not having five years of teaching experience. It is stated that no other candidate, who applied to the third respondent, was having five years of teaching experience.

3. The third respondent submitted proposal for approval before the second respondent, who is the competent authority. The said application seeking approval was rejected on the following grounds:

(a) Third respondent failed to obtain prior approval for appointment,

(b) Third respondent failed to get list from the Employment Exchange, prior to appointment, and,

(c) Petitioner is not having five years of teaching experience.

Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from the services of the third respondent by order dated 19.12.2000. The order disapproving the appointment of the petitioner is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that there is considerable delay on the part of the second respondent in not granting prior permission to fill up the post of Headmaster and only after submitting application seeking prior permission, the third respondent invited applications through newspaper, pursuant to which several persons applied. It is contended that calling for list from the Employment Exchange for appointment may be a source and the same cannot be the exclusive source. Petitioner having been appointed on the basis of the advertisement published in the newspaper, the second respondent cannot reject approval on the ground that her name was not sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Insofar as not having five years of experience is concerned, no candidate applied for the post was having the required teaching experience and in fact there is a provision to get exemption from the Government for not having five years of teaching experience and the Government also granted exemption to similarly placed persons. Even if exemption cannot be granted, petitioner's appointment can be approved as B.T. Assistant for five years and on completion of five years service, Headmistress salary can be paid.

4. The third respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the post of Headmaster in the third respondent School became vacant on 1.6.1999 due to the retirement of the then Headmaster V. Murugan on 31.5.1999. As no suitable person was available in the School for promotion to the post, the School Committee resolved to fill up the post by direct recruitment and after seeking prior permission from the competent authority, the third respondent invited applications through newspaper dated 18.6.1999, pursuant to which nine candidates applied and appeared for selection. None of the candidate applied for th