B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are two in number, working as Record Assistants with S. S. B. Girls High School (hereinafter referred to as the School ) since 01-09-1984 have filed this writ petition questioning the orders passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting their cases for admission into grant-in-aid posts, which were sanctioned in G. O. Ms. No. 398, education (PS. 2) Department, dated 31-10-1994, as illegal and arbitrary. ( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. On are presentation made by the 4th respondent- correspondent of the School to the 3rd respondent, the then District Educational officer vide proceedings Rc. No. 1/spl/a3/ 87, dated 04-11-1987 sanctioned three unaided posts of Record Assistants from the years 1984 to 1985 along with other teaching and non-teaching posts. Thereafter, the correspondent of the School appointed the petitioners along with one mr. K. Subbarayudu on 01-09-1984 as record Assistants. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent approved the appointments of the petitioners vide his proceedings rc. No. l-Spl/a3/87, dated 06-11-1987. ( 3 ) WHILE the things stood thus, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 111, education (SSE) Department, dated 20-03-1991 admitting the teaching and non-teaching posts in various schools to grant-in-aid under item No. 4, and along with other staff, one post of Record Assistant was admitted to grant-in-aid. In the post that was admitted to grant-in-aid. Mr. K. Subbarayudu was admitted. Subsequently, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 398, Education (PS. 2) department, dated 31-10-1994 admitting both teaching and non-teaching posts to grant-in-aid in various schools. Under Item no. 7 apart from other posts two more posts of Record Assistants were admitted to grant-in-aid. Thereafter, when the proposals were sent by the Correspondent of the school for admitting these two petitioners to grant-in-aid, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order referred supra. The only ground on which the 2nd respondent rejected the cases of the petitioners for admitting them to grant-in-aid posts was that on the day when the D. E. O. gave orders, sanctioning three un-aided posts on 04-11-1987 the competent authority to give sanction orders is the Director of School education but not the D. E. O. as per g. O. Ms. No. 647, Education, dated 18-06-1977. I have gone through the orders referred supra carefully and I have no hesitation to reject the contention of the 2nd respondent for more than one reason. No. 647, Education, dated 18-06-1977. I have gone through the orders referred supra carefully and I have no hesitation to reject the contention of the 2nd respondent for more than one reason. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, G. O. Ms. No. 647, Education, dated 18-06-1977 was issued on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee headed by Dr. P. Jagan mohan Reddy the then Vice-Chancellor of osmania University, who in the month of may, 1997 went into the question of extending the benefits of scales of pay sanctioned to the Government Employees holding equivalent posts to the non- teaching staff of the Aided Schools and colleges. The G. O. is prospective in operation and it has no retrospective effect. From the orders of the District Educational officer dated 04-11-1987 it is seen that sanction was given for creation of the posts from the academic year 1984-85. From this it is seen that the Correspondent was making representations since long time for creation of the posts, at any rate, from 1984-85 onwards and the D. E. O. passed orders only on 06-11-1987. Hence, to my mind the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for admission to grant-in-aid posts on the ground that on the day when the D. E. O. gave orders creating posts he is not the competent authority. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners are working as Record assistants from 01-09-1984 and the same is evident from the pre-audit report of the school by the Departmental Officials wherein a reference was made about the working of the petitioners as Record assistants. After the issuance of the second g. O. i. e. , G. O. Ms. No. 398, dated 31-10-1994 and the auditors observed as hereunder:"it is submitted that the DEO. , cuddapah in his Rc. No. 1-Spl. / A3/87, dt. 4-11-87 has created three Record assistants (un-aided) during 1984-85. As per G. O. Ms. No. 647 Edn. , dated 18-6-77 and D s Procs. Rc. No. 2055/ d2. 1/89, dt. 6-10-89, the DSE is the competent authority for the creation of non-teaching staff in Aided Secondary school in the State. In view of the above, it is submitted that an amount of Rs. 63,900/- (Rupees sixty three thousand and nine hundred only) may be released by the deo. , Cuddapah subject to ratification orders from the DSE. 1/89, dt. 6-10-89, the DSE is the competent authority for the creation of non-teaching staff in Aided Secondary school in the State. In view of the above, it is submitted that an amount of Rs. 63,900/- (Rupees sixty three thousand and nine hundred only) may be released by the deo. , Cuddapah subject to ratification orders from the DSE. , Hyderabad for creation of Record Assistants (Non-teaching staff) and Craft Instructor post and after absorption of the staff into GIA posts. "from this it is seen that the factum of the work by the petitioners in the school is not in dispute since 01-09-1984, but the Director wants to deny the benefit only on the sole ground that the competent authority i. e. , himself has not given orders creating the posts. Admittedly the Government considered the representation of the management and passed orders admitting two more posts of Record Assistants to grant-in-aid. Having accepted the need, the 2nd respondent cannot deny the benefit to the petitioners on the ground that the earlier orders creating the posts were passed by the D. E. O. are not in order. The issue can be looked at from another angle also. Now the Government agreed admitting two posts of Record Assistants to grant-in-aid after ascertaining the need. Even if the appointment of the petitioners is not in order the Management is at liberty to fill up those posts by making fresh appointments and more particularly when the petitioners have been working for over ten years and gained much experience, I do not see any justification in not considering their cases for admission to grant-in-aid posts. ( 5 ) AT the worst, the order of the D. E. O. may be irregular, but it cannot be called illegal as the Government itself having realized the need of two more posts of record Assistants and passed orders admitting two posts for Record Assistants to grant-in-aid. ( 6 ) IN the light of the view taken by me, the impugned order dated 29th December, 1995 cannot be sustained in law as it is the result of non-application of mind to the facts of the case. Accordingly the order is set aside and the respondents are directed to admit the petitioners to the posts that were admitted to grant-in-aid by the government in G. O. Ms. No. 398, Education, dated 31-10-1994. Accordingly the order is set aside and the respondents are directed to admit the petitioners to the posts that were admitted to grant-in-aid by the government in G. O. Ms. No. 398, Education, dated 31-10-1994. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.