N.Latha v. The Joint Commissioner/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 23.11.2017 DELIVERED ON : 22.12.2017

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN WRIT PETITION NOS.14132 TO 14139, AND 6637, 8659 AND 11663 OF 2011 N.Latha .. Petitioner in WP.14132/2011 Santhi .. Petitioner in WP.14133/2011 M.Anitha .. Petitioner in WP.14134/2011 S.Sathya .. Petitioner in WP.14135/2011 G.Prabha .. Petitioner in WP.14136/2011 S.Mahalakshmi .. Petitioner in WP.14137/2011 K.Rathika .. Petitioner in WP.14138/2011 K.Vijila .. Petitioner in WP.14139/2011 K.Revathi .. Petitioner in WP.6637/2011 J.Hema .. Petitioner in WP.8659/2011 K.Mythili .. Petitioner in WP.11663/2011 VS 1.

The Joint Commissioner/Chairman, School Committee Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Thanjavur.

2.

The Assistant Commissioner-cum-School Secretary, Kovilur Arulmighu Periya Nayagi Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District.

3.

The District Educational Officer, Thiruvarur. (Impleaded as per order dated 14.7.2011 in MP.No.3 of 2011) 4.

The Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, (Suo Motu impleaded as per Order dated 28.9.2012) .. Respondents WP.14133,14134,14135,14136, 14137,14138,14139 OF 2011

1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD SECRETARIATE CHENNAI.

2 THE COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD MAHATMA GANDHI SALAI CHENNAI-34.

3 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD THANJAVUR.

4 THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICE TIRUVARUR.

5 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD TIRUVARUR.

6 THE SECRETARY ARULMIGU PERIYANAYAGI GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KOVILOOR POST MUTHUPET THIRUVARUR DISTRICT-614 704.

7 MS.S.SATHYA B.SC.B.ED.TEACHER D/O.S.SINGARAVELU ARULMIGU PERIYANAYAGI GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KOVILOOR POST MUTHUPET THIRUVARUR DIST- 614704 (Impleaded as per Order dated 30.03.2017 BY NPVJ IN MP 2/2011 IN WP.6637/2011) .. Respondent in WP.No.6637 of 2011 1 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER THIRUVARUR THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER / PRESIDENT OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD THANJAVUR THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY KOVILUR ARULMIGHU PERIYA NAYAGI GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL MUTHUPETTAI THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TALUK THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT MUTHUPETTAI THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TALUK THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

5 S.MAHALAKSHMI D/O.R.SHANMUGAVEL NO.5/369 GOKULAM NAGAR ATHIKULAM MADURAI.

6 THE SECRETARY HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT (Suomotu Impleaded as per Order dated 28.09.2017 BY KKSJ IN WPS.8659, 7752, 14132 TO 14139/11) .. Respondent in WP.No.8659 of 2011

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HR AND CE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI-9 2 THE COMMISSIONER HR AND CE BOARD NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD CHENNAI-34 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HR AND CE BOARD THIRUVARUR DISTRICT 4 ARULMIGU PERIYANAYAGI GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MUTHUPET THIRUVARUR DIST 5 ANITHA .. Respondent in WP.No.11663 of 2011 PRAYER in NOS.14132 TO 14139, AND 6637, 8659 AND 11663 OF 2011:- Prayer in WP.No.14132 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.3/2011 and quash the same Prayer in WP.No.14133 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.7/2011 and quash the same

Prayer in WP.No.14134 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.11/2011 and quash the same Prayer in WP.No.14135 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.6/2011 and quash the same Prayer in WP.No.14136 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.8/2011 and quash the same Prayer in WP.No.14137 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.10/2011 and quash the same Prayer in WP.No.

14138 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.5/2011 and quash the same Prayer in WP.No.14139 of 2011:- To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 13.06.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.4/2011 and quash the same Prayer in WP.No.6637 of 2011:- Writ Petition Praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Directions or Orders in the nature of Writ and direct to the 5th respondent to appoint the petitioner permanently in the interview conducted place or a seat of Teacher Post may be reserved for the petitioner in the 6th respondent school Prayer in WP.No.

to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in relates to the Na.Ka.No.10/2011 dated 24.02.2011 passed by the third respondent, appointing the 5th respondent in Kovilur Arulmighu Periya Nayaki Girls Higher Secondary School Muthupettai Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk Thiruvarur District and Quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of P.G.Assistant Economics

Prayer in WP.No.8659 of 2011:

Writ Petition praying for Writ order or direction declaring that the appointment of the 5th respondent by the respondents 3 and 4 for their institution as physical Director Grade-1 on the basis of the adversement given by the respondents 3 and 4 on 5.1.2011 and publishedin Dhina Thanthi Tamil Daily on 6.1.2011 is null and void and not in accordance with law and not binding on the petitioner.

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For M/s.A.Murugaiyan Babu and N.Senthil Kumar For petitioners in WPs.14132 to 14139/2011 No appearance For petitioners in WPs.6637, 8659 and 11663/2011 For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Spl. Government Pleader For respondents 1, 2 and 4 In WPs.14132 to 14139/2011 For respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6 In WP.8659/2011 For respondents 1 to 4 in WP.11663/2011 For respondents 1 to 3 in WP.6637/2011 Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy Addl. Government Pleader For third respondent In WPs.14132 to 14139/2011 For 1st respondent in WP.8659/2011 No Appearance For 5th respondent In WP.11663/2011 (Respondents 4 to 7 dismissed Vide court order dated 11/4/2012)

COMMON ORDER Calling into question the correctness and validity of the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the second respondent, in and by which, the second respondent ordered to keep in abeyance the orders of appointment of the petitioners by stating that the communal roster system has not been followed while appointing them, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.14132 to 14139 of 2011 (these batch of writ petitions are for brevity referred to as "the first batch of writ petitions")

2. W.P.Nos.6637, 8659 and 11663 of 2011 are filed by the petitioners, who are unsuccessful candidates and who participated along with the petitioners in the first batch for appointment to various posts in the second respondent school, seeking to direct the official respondents to appoint them to the post of Graduate Teacher or Post Graduate Teacher, as the case may be. (These three writ petitions are hereinafter referred to as "the second batch of writ petitions" for brevity)

3. The facts which led to the filing of the first batch of writ petitions are that on 05.01.2011, the second respondent herein caused an advertisement in Tamil Daily inviting applications for selection and appointment to various posts such as Graduate and Post Graduate Assistants and Physical Education Teacher in the second respondent school. As per the advertisement, those who possess the requisite qualification can submit their applications on or before 18.1.2011 in the prescribed format along with necessary testimonials in support of their educational qualification. The advertisement also provides for community to which each post was earmarked.

4. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners in the first as well as second batch of writ petitions submitted their applications, including the documents to show that they have registered their names with the concerned District Employment Exchange.

5. On 22.02.2011, the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions along with other candidates were called upon to attend the interview and they, accordingly, participated in the interview. During such interview, the educational testimonials of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions and the employment exchange registration details were also scrutinized and examined by the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent, on being satisfied with the requisite qualification

of the petitioners, issued orders of appointment on 24.02.2011 in favour of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions. On the basis of such orders of appointment, the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have also joined the respective post to which they were appointed on 01.03.2011. The above said appointments were made only after the permission of the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruvarur, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974 was obtained. However, the petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions were unsuccessful and were not selected.

6. After the appointment of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions, the Headmaster of the School had also sent a communication to the Treasury Officer for opening Service Register. In effect, from the date of joining, namely 1.3.2011, the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have been working in the post to which they were appointed.

7. When things stood thus, the second respondent passed the order dated 13.6.2011, i.e., after three months of the appointment of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions, stating that a verification is required to be made as to whether the community roster system has been followed in the matter of appointment of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions and, therefore, the second respondent kept the orders of appointment of the petitioners in abeyance. Immediately, the petitioners have filed the first batch of writ petitions in assailing the order dated 13.6.2011 of the second respondent.

8. The petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions, who are unsuccessful candidates, averred as follows: The petitioner in W.P.No.6637 of 2011 states that he has all the requisite educational qualification and experience and based on the same he was called for interview and even though he done well in the interview, he has not been selected. The petitioner in W.P.No.8659 of 2011 averred that communal rotation has not been followed and that one of the selected candidates hails from Madurai, which is 250 Kms. Away from the school. The petitioner in W.P.No.11663 of 2011 pleads that some of the selected candidates are less qualified and experienced and that non consideration of her candidature shows that the selection process smacks of mala fide.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the

first batch of writ petitions, first off, submits that a bare perusal of the advertisement calling for applications shows that posts were notified as per communal roster and, therefore, there is no basis to pass the impugned orders, keeping the appointments of the petitioners in abeyance, to re-confirm whether the communal roster was followed correctly.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions vehemently contends that when once the petitioners are appointed to posts which are sanctioned, the second respondent cannot keep their appointments in abeyance for verification of the procedure adopted for appointing them, more so, when the second respondent is empowered to verify the procedure that was required to be followed in the matter of appointment of the petitioners without passing the impugned order.

11. He further contended that the second respondent school is a Private Aided School which comes under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and it is governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and there is no provision contemplated under the Act or the Rules to adopt such a course to keep the appointments in abeyance.

12. In any event, it is submitted that before passing the impugned orders, the second respondent could have put the petitioners on notice in compliance with principles of natural justice which was not followed in this case.

13. It is further argued that the petitioners are nowhere concerned with the alleged procedural irregularity in the matter of their appointment, and, therefore, they should not be penalized. In other words, it is pleaded that the impugned order of the second respondent is in the nature of denying employment to the petitioners indirectly and it is legally not sustainable.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions, in one voice, would contend that the petitioners are fully qualified and are possessing necessary experience to hold the post, but the official respondents, without considering such qualification and experience, refused to grant them appointment and in turn granted appointment to candidates who are lesser qualified and experience and, accordingly, seek direction on the official respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post applied for.

15. The learned Special Government Pleader (HR & CE) appearing for the first respondent, reiterating the stand of the first respondent in the counter affidavit, would contend that on 13.6.2011, the School Committee of the second respondent conducted a meeting and resolved to keep the appointments of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance inasmuch as the school committee has not been duly constituted in accordance with the Act. It was also stated that even though resolution was passed by the School Committee on 23.2.2011, those resolutions were not duly recorded in the Minutes Book, rather they were kept in loose sheets.

According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, as per Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Rules, the Educational Agency of the School has to be constituted with 12 members, viz., six representatives nominated by the educational agency and balance six shall comprise the Headmaster of the School and three Senior-most Teachers of the school, nominees from the Parent Teacher Association, etc. It is also submitted that as per Section 17 of the Act, the School Committee has to follow the provisions contained in sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 17 of the Act with regard to transaction of business at its meeting. Further, as per Rule 14, the meetings of the School Committee have to be convened by the second respondent with the approval of the first respondent.

Thus, for non compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the second respondent is wholly justified in passing the impugned orders keeping the appointments of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance.

16. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent - District Educational Officer would contend that the second respondent is a Private Aided School within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. It is run by the Educational Agency, namely the Commissioner, HR&CE Department and receives aid from the Government. As per sub-rule 4(ii)(iii)(c) of Rule 15 of the Rules, in case of direct recruitment, the school committee shall obtain prior permission from the Chief Educational Officer and in this case, the Chief Educational Officer has accorded such permission.

Further, the second respondent school being a non minority school, the rules of appointment such as rule of reservation, sponsorship from employment exchange, advertisement through leading dailies has to be followed and thereafter, the Secretary of the School has to send a proposal to the third respondent for approval.

details. However, he submitted that the third respondent is not aware of the order dated 13.6.2011 passed by the second respondent, which is impugned in the first batch of writ petitions. In effect, the third respondent would contend that the second respondent was directed to resubmit a proposal with details such as constitution of school committee, continuance of recognition, etc., to ascertain whether rule of reservation was followed, but such particulars were not furnished by the second respondent for consideration.

17. I heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar for M/s.A.Murugaiyan Babu and N.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP.Nos.14132 to 14139 of 2011, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners in WP.Nos.6637, 8659 and 11663 of 2011, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in WP.Nos.14132 to 14139 of 2011 and respondents 2, 3, 4 and 6 in WP.8659 of 2011 and respondents 1 to 4 in WP.11663 of 2011 and respondents 1 to 3 in WP.6637 of 2011, Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, learned Additional Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent in WP.Nos.14132 to 14139 of 2011 and for 1st respondent in WP.No.8659 of 2011, there is no representation on behalf of the 5th respondent in WP.11663 of 2011 and perused the documents placed on record.

18. It is seen from the records that the second respondent has caused an advertisement in newspaper on 05.01.2011 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Graduate and Post Graduate Assistants and Physical Education Teacher in the second respondent school. A bare perusal of the said advertisement, its shows that the posts were invited community wise. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners and others applied for the post. After scrutinization of the applications received, the second respondent has called for a list of eligible candidates from the District Employment Exchange and it was also received. An interview was conducted by the School Committee of the second respondent on 22.02.2011 in which 14 candidates, including the petitioners participated. Ultimately, the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions were selected and orders of appointment were issued to them.

19. Pursuant to such appointment, the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions joined the respective post to which they were appointed on 1.3.2011 and were discharging their duties. While so, the second respondent has issued the impugned order on 13.6.2011, inter alia, on the ground that verification has to be caused as to whether the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions were appointed by following the communal

roster or not and on such premise, the appointments were kept in abeyance. Indeed, there is no provision of law cited by the second respondent for passing such an order keeping the appointments of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance.

20. It is not known as to how the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions could be penalized for the official respondents not following certain procedural formalities. Even assuming that there were lapses and certain procedural formalities not followed, it is not known as to what is sought to be achieved by keeping the appointments of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance, especially three months after their joining duty in the posts to which they were appointed. If certain procedures were not followed in the matter of selection of the petitioner, it is very well open to the official respondents to ascertain it and if there is any lapse in following the procedure, the person who is responsible for such lapse has to be held responsible.

At any rate, keeping the orders of appointment issued to the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance is legally not sustainable. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, keeping the appointment orders issued to the petitioners in abeyance, would certainly amount to denying them employment for no fault attributable to them. Admittedly, after the appointment of the petitioners, the Headmaster of the School had also sent a communication to the Treasury Officer for opening service registers and it is at this stage, the impugned orders came to be passed by the second respondent.

21. Admittedly, the Chief Educational Officer, in his letter dated 30.6.2009 addressed to the District Educational Officer, Thiruvarur, has granted permission to fill up two vacancies in the second respondent school. Subsequently, by another letter dated 13.11.2010, the Chief Educational Officer has accorded permission to fill up six vacancies by appointing female teachers. Thus, the posts in which the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions were appointed and their approval is also pending before the Chief Educational Officer and said factor is fairly admitted by the official respondents in the counter affidavit.

22. The only ground raised by the official respondents is that the School Committee was not properly constituted and the provisions contained under the Act and the Rules were not

scrupulously followed. If it is so, the second respondent ought to have conducted appropriate enquiry to ascertain the compliance of procedure instead of keeping the orders of appointment issued to the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance. It would be apposite, at this juncture, to refer to the counter affidavit of the first respondent in para (4h), which states that the petitioner in W.P.No.14133 of 2011, namely Shanthi, has been selected on the basis of the marks obtained by her, i.e., 112 out of 250. The said Shanthi belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Having regard to the communal rotation and the prescribed marks having been obtained by the petitioner in W.P.No.14133 of 2011, a resolution has been passed by the School Committee on 23.2.2011 to appoint her.

Similar was the case in respect of the other petitioners who were selected to the posts. While so, it is not known as to how the respondents will be justified in keeping the orders of appointment issued to the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance. In my considered view, no useful purpose will be achieved by resorting to keeping the orders of appointment issued to the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance. Therefore, in my considered view, the orders which are challenged in the first batch of writ petitions are not legally sustainable and they are liable to be set aside.

23. Yet another aspect for consideration is that the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions have been appointed on 1.3.2011 and they have put in three months of service prior to the passing of the impugned orders. While so, the second respondent ought not to have passed the impugned orders without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions. Such a course adopted by the second respondent in straightaway issuing the impugned orders, is per se in gross violation of the barebones of the principles of natural justice.

24. The principles of natural justice is one of the elementary principles of civilized jurisprudence and is grounded in justice, equity and good conscious. Such rule which is respected the world over cannot be immolated or sacrificed at the alter of administrative convenience or celerity. By now it is well settled that principles of natural justice equally applies to the administrative actions. The rule of audi alteram partem, to wit, that no man shall be condemned unheard and a fair opportunity of being heard should be afforded to him, is a cardinal principal of justice and violation of this rule even in the discharge of administrative duties, which may adversely affect a person, shall vitiate the order/action.

25. In the first batch of writ petitions, admittedly, before keeping the appointments in abeyance, no opportunity was given to the petitioners therein and the procedure adopted by the second respondent is certainly a far cry from the settled proposition of law qua principles of natural justice, referred supra. On this ground too, the impugned orders challenged in the first batch of writ petitions are not sustainable.

26. As regard the claim of the petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions, admittedly, they participated in the interview but they were not selected. These petitioners only seek a direction to appoint them. They are not assailing the appointment orders issued to the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions. In my considered opinion, the petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions cannot, as a matter of right, seek a direction to appoint them in the post. Admittedly, a due selection process was conducted in which all the petitioners participated, but the petitioners in second batch of writ petitions were not selected. While so, this Court cannot interfere with the selection process conducted by the official respondents and issue a mandamus to appoint the petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions, when in fact the authorities have not found the petitioners in the second batch of writ petitions not eligible for appointment.

27. It is seen from the records that at the time when the above writ petitions in first batch of writ petitions were listed for admission, this Court granted interim stay on 22.6.2011. By virtue of the said interim order, the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions are continuing in service without break for all these years and the said factor is not disputed. The petitioners have acquired an accrued right by reason of continuing in the service from the date of their appointment till this date. While so, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be achieved by keeping the orders of appointment issued to the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions in abeyance.

28. For the foregoing reasons:

(a) the first batch of writ petitions, i.e., W.P.No.14132 to 14139 of 2011, are allowed and the impugned orders dated 13.06.2011 are set aside; (b) the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders approving the appointments of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions, by giving personal opportunity to the petitioners as

well as the second respondent;

(c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(d) it is needless to mention that the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions are entitled to all consequential service and monetary benefits with retrospective effect, i.e., from the date they joined in service;

(e) in view of the upholding of the appointment of the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.6637, 8659 and 11663 of 2011 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vs To 1.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL COMMITTEE HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD, THANJAVUR.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-CUM-SCHOOL SECRETARY, KOVILUR ARULMIGHU PERIYA NAYAGI GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVARUR, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

3.

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVARUR.

4.

THE SECRETARY, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, 5.

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT 6.

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT MUTHUPETTAI THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TALUK THIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

7.

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD, SECRETARIAT FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI-9

8. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD, MAHATMA GANDHI SALAI, CHENNAI-34 9.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT BOARD, TIRUVARUR 10.

THE SECRETARY, ARULMIGHU PERIYANAYAGI GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOVILUR POST MUTHUPET, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT- 614 704 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.112 Writ Petition Nos.14132 to 14139, and 6637, 8659 and 11663 of 2011 MG(CO) CS/25/01/18