ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to approve her appointment as Class IV staff on the basis of the letter of appointment dated 7th January 1981 issued by the respondent no.5, The Secretary, Routari Junior High School for Girls (for short 'the said School hereafter) and also to approve the grants-in-aid for the petitioner as Class IV staff from January 1,1987, the date from which the said school• has been recognised on the basis of staff statement, as annexed in Annexure 'C' to the writ petition and also to pay full salary and usual allowance. 2. Mr. Ajic Kumar Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents, claims and contends that the petitioner cannot claim such benefit straightaway from this Hon'ble Court without proper determination of her grievances by the competent authority. According to Mr. Saha, the petitioner should have moved the appropriate authority for such determination but that was not done. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Saha on the sole ground that the petitioner has been admittedly working in the said school as a Class IV staff against a permanent vacancy and she has been accorded the benefit of grants-in-aid with effect from 1.1.1987. Apart from above, certain benefits have been accorded to those teachers and non-teaching staff on the basis of the Government Order being No. 2605(l6)-SC/S dated December 20, 1984. Attention of Mr. Saha was also drawn to the Government Circular No. 536-Edn. (Estt.)/9A.9/80 dated July 16, 1980. The petitioner fulfills all the conditions as provided in the said circular. Moreover, the petitioner was in service on the date of final inspection of the said school which is borne by the approval of the grants-in-aid accorded in favour of the petitioner. While deciding the matter, I think it fit and proper to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.T Devin Katti v. Karnataka public Service Commission, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 where it was held that by reason of the procedures which were completed by reason of the approval of the grants-in-aid, the petitioner has acquired a vested right and that vested right cannot be otherwise whittled down by subsequent Government Order of the year 1987. 4. After careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions of Mr. 4. After careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions of Mr. Saha on behalf of the respondents and Mr. Arunava Ghosh on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the view that the appointment of the petitioner should be properly regularised. 6. Accordingly, the concerned authority is directed to regularise the appointment of the petitioner as Class IV staff within two months from date and also to accord all the service benefits to the petitioner from the date of presentation of the writ application. The writ application is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Before parting with the case, I am tempted to, put an epilogue: "When the law shows her teeth but cannot bite a farce is enacted." Application allowed; direction given.