JUDGMENT

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

AND N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

The 4th respondent in W.P(MD)No.4134 of 2008 is on appeal, aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petition, quashing the publication made in Dinamalar Newspaper dated 23.03.2008, calling for applications from candidates belonging to Most Backward Class community for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school and the direction to appoint the writ petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher under Section 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973.

2. The writ petition came to be filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the publication made by the 4th respondent in the writ petition on 23.03.2008, calling for applications from candidates belonging to Most Backward Class community for being appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the school and for a direction to appoint the writ petitioner in the said post.

3. The parties will be referred to by their rank in the writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the available vacancy on 07.09.1990 with the prior approval of the 2nd respondent dated 18.06.1990. While so, the 2nd respondent stopped payment of salary to her on 13.12.1990. It is stated that her appointment was recorded in the service register opened by the 4th respondent which was also attested by the 3rd respondent on 07.11.1990. It is the claim of the petitioner that even though she was not paid salary, the Management assured that they will pursue the matter with the authorities and ensure that she is paid salary. She therefore continued in service. It is also stated that she was offered employment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Warapur, on 05.12.1990. She would claim that she could not join duty, since the 4th respondent school failed to relieve her. Subsequently, one Tmt.Saroja, a Secondary Grade Teacher, working in the 4th respondent school, retired by superannuation on 31.03.1992 and the petitioner was appointed in her place on 01.04.1992.

5. It is stated that the petitioner went on maternity leave on

08.10.1992. When she wanted to join back, she was not allowed to join duty. It was stated that she could join duty only after obtaining approval from the 2nd respondent. It appears that the approval sought for was rejected by the authorities on 11.03.1994. The petitioner however chose to file a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.16946 of 1994, seeking a direction to allow her to report for duty as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 18.11.1993. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 27.06.2001. The fact that the approval was refused even on 11.03.1994 appears to have not been brought to the notice of this Court when W.P(MD)No.16946 of 1994 was dismissed. This Court, however, granted permission to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent therein, for approval of her appointment. Pursuant to the said observation of this Court, it appears that the petitioner had applied to the authorities for approval.

6. The petitioner again filed W.P(MD)No.14351 of 2003, seeking a direction to the authorities to approve her appointment. This Court by order dated 29.12.2003, dismissed the said writ petition concluding that she cannot seek a Mandamus without challenging the order rejecting approval dated 11.03.1994. The petitioner sought for a review of the said order along with an application to condone the delay in Review Application SR.No.101585 of 2005. It is during the pendency of the said review, the publication that is impugned in W.P(MD)No.4134 of 2008, came to be made. This Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the review on 21.12.2012. In the interregnum, this Court had granted stay of further proceedings pursuant to the publication in W.P(MD)No.4134 of 2008 on 29.04.2008. The said stay order was vacated by this Court on 13.08.2008. It is also seen that the petitioner ha