The main legal point established in the judgment is that the approval process for appointments under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the application of the roster system are crucial factors in determining the validity of appointments.

R. Subbiah, J.

This Review Application has been filed to review the order dated 27.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.7680 of 2010, in and by which, this Court has rejected the prayer of the review applicant/writ petitioner to quash the orders passed by the first respondent, dated 09.01.2009 and 25.05.2009 and to direct the second respondent to send fresh approval application to the first respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment as BT-Assistant-Tamil in the second respondent-School and consequently direct the first respondent to approve the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The petitioner has studied Tamil Pandit Training Course in Institute of Education, Saidapet, Chennai, during the academic year 1997-98, which is the basic qualification for the post BT Assistant (Tamil). He has also studied B.Lit. (Tamil), MA (Tamil) and M.Phil. (Tamil) through Distance Education System in University of Madras. He has also registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Vellore.

(b) The second respondent-School is a Government Aided Management School, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. The petitioner was appointed as BT Assistant (Tamil) in the second respondent-School from 2003. A vacancy arose in the post of Tamil Pandit BT Assistant (Tamil) due to promotion of one Ms. K. Jayashree on 01.07.2006 and the second respondent obtained permission from the first respondent to appoint a BT Assistant-Tamil in the said vacancy, by proceedings, dated 27.08.2007. Thereafter, the second respondent invited applications from the eligible candidates and in the said advertisement, the communal ratio was stated as Scheduled Caste--General. The second respondent also called for the list of eligible candidates from the District Employment Exchange Office, Vellore to fill up the above said post and in the said communal ratio, it is stated as "Scheduled Caste". Since the petitioner was an eligible candidate, he had applied to the second respondent for appointment of the above said post.

(c) On 04.09.2008, the second respondent-School's Committee had conducted an interview to assess the merit and ability, based on which, the petitioner was selected and appointed as BT-Assistant-Tamil on 17.09.2008. Thereafter, the second respondent has entered into an agreement with the petitioner in Form-VII A (Rule 5) with respect to the appointment of permanent Teacher. Since 17.09.2008, the petitioner was working as BT-Assistant-Tamil in the second respondent-School. The second respondent sent an application dated 19.09.2008 to approve the petitioner's appointment as BT-Assistant-Tamil, but the first respondent rejected the said approval, by order dated 09.01.2009 on the ground that communal ratio was not followed in his appointment and the said post ought to have been filled from "Scheduled Caste-Women" and not from "Scheduled Caste-General". The first respondent passed another order in his proceedings dated 25.05.2009 stating that the said post ought to have been filled under the communal ratio of "General Category". In the above said two orders of the first respondent, two different reasons have been stated in refusing to give approval for the petitioner's appointment. Neither the first respondent nor the second respondent informed about the rejection of approval application.

(d) While so, on 25.01.2010 at about 3.30 p.m., when the review applicant/writ petitioner was teaching in a class room, the Secretary informed him that his appointment was not approved by the first respondent and asked him to go out of the School. The grievance expressed by the review applicant is that neither the first respondent nor the second respondent served the petitioner any order or informed him about the rejection of the approval application. Thereafter, the petitioner got the relevant documents from the second respondent only on 05.02.2010. The first and second respondents colluded with mala-fide intention to appoi