Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.) The petitioner prays for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 4th respondent dated 27.04.2001 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to consider the appointment of the teacher Thiru. M. Rajendran in the Middle Grade Graduate teacher post with effect from 25.4.2001 or a future date in the petitioner school with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner is the management of the school and the petitioner submits that vacancy in the school arose in the post of Secondary Grade teacher during the academic year 2000-2001. By letter dated 26.12.2000, the third respondent granted permission to fill up the post. Thereafter, a letter was addressed to the District Employment Exchange for sponsoring suitable candidates by letter dated 22.1.2001. Though a list of candidates was sent, none of them attended the interview in spite of the call letters being sent by the institute. Subsequently, the school issued a paper advertisement on 16.04.2001 inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of Secondary Grade teacher. In the interview which was held, the school had selected M. Rajendran, B.Sc., B.Ed as per the roaster system and appointed him in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The said teacher was also taking Mathematics subject for the VIII standard. 3. Subsequently, on 25.04.2001 the petitioner forwarded proposals for the approval of the appointment of Thiru. M. Rajendran. But the respondent did not choose to grant approval and after repeated representations, the impugned order has been passed holding that it was not possible to appoint a graduate teacher in the middle school. 4. Having regard to the nature of the disposal of the writ petition, it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner as regards the validity of the impugned order. It is not disputed by both sides that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.79, Education Department dated 14.06.2002 in which, the Government had as a policy accepted the appointment of graduate teachers at the middle school grade and also revising the scale of pay for such appointees. 5. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the right of appointee. In this case is recognized by the issue of the said Government order. 5. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the right of appointee. In this case is recognized by the issue of the said Government order. The said Government Order makes it clear that all vacancies as on 1.6.2002 are to be filled up by appointing graduate teachers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the respondents cannot have any objection for granting approval in favour of the appointee at least with effect from 01.06.2002. 6. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader who contends that as on the day when the impugned order was passed. G.O.Ms.79 dated 14.06.2002 had not been issued by the Government. The petitioner seeks confirmation of the service of the appointee from the date of appointment namely 27.04.2001, which cannot be sustained. 7. However, having regard to the fact that Government itself has changed its policy, as could be seen from G.O.Ms.79 dated 14.06.2003, I am inclined to order the writ petition subject to the following conditions:- (I) The Petitioner is directed to forward a fresh application for regularization of the services or approval of the services of the said Rajendran. (II) On receipt of the said application, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and also in terms of G.O.Ms.79 dated 14.06.2002, which definitely entitles to the petitioner approval at least with effect from 01.06.2002. 8. As regards the period prior to 01.06.2002, it is stated that even though the petitioner had taken proper efforts to appoint a competent person, the individuals sponsored by the employment exchange did not attend the interview in spite of the call letter being sent by the petitioner. It is only thereafter, the petitioner had issued a public advertisement and called for eligible candidates for the appointment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the non availability of competent teacher. As long as the said contention is not disputed by the respondents, the petitioner’s claim appears to be just and proper. Hence, the Government is also directed to consider the entitlement of appointing Thiru. M. Rajendran for the said post sympathetically, even for the period prior to 1.6.2002, with effect from actual date of appointment. 9. With the result, the writ petition is ordered, subject to the above observations. Hence, the Government is also directed to consider the entitlement of appointing Thiru. M. Rajendran for the said post sympathetically, even for the period prior to 1.6.2002, with effect from actual date of appointment. 9. With the result, the writ petition is ordered, subject to the above observations. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.