(1.) Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents.
(2.) Admittedly, due to certain disputes among the Board of Directors of the management of the third respondent-Higher Secondary School, the administration of the school was entrusted with the second respondent, by proceedings dated 9.11.1999 of the Director of Education, conferring the following powers on the second respondent: a.Granting leave to the staff and employees of the school. b.Approval and disbursement of amounts with regard to P.F., festival allowance, Cooptex Advance, marriage advance, etc. c.Signing in the forms and applications relating to P.F. savings, transfer and settlement of accounts of the employees and staff. d.Entering the necessary particulars and signing in the matters relating to the retirement of employees, their salary fixation, their selection grade and special grade fixation, etc. e.Relieving the employees on their resignation or retirement in accordance with rules.
(3.) On an alleged charge of misappropriation of monies meant for Adi Dravida students, and for mismanagement of the administration of the third respondent-Higher Secondary School, disciplinary action was initiated against the fourth respondent, who was acting as the Headmaster of the third respondent-Higher Secondary School, and in pursuance of such disciplinary action the fourth respondent was terminated from service from 4.1.19969, and consequently the writ petitioner herein was made in-charge of the post of Headmaster of the third respondent-Higher Secondary School, against which the fourth respondent had preferred an appeal on 5.4.1999 to the Joint Registrar of School Education (Higher Secondary). As no orders were passed on the appeal dated 5.4.1999 alleged to have been preferred by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent moved this Court in W.P.No.20972 of 2000 seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents therein to allow the fourth respondent herein to work as Headmaster of the third respondent-Higher Secondary School and to pay salary to the fourth respondent from January, 1999, by considering his appeal dated 5.4.1999 made to the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), contending that his order of termination is illegal and contrary to law, for want of prior approval from competent authority contemplated under Section 22(1) of the Act.