Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order-dated 16.4.2004 passed in W.P.No.9914 of 2004.) F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.9914 of 2004 confirming the order of the third respondent dated 24.4.2001 and of the first respondent dated 16.3.2004. 2. The appellant came to be appointed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 24.1.2001 as B.T.Assistant in the fourth respondent School. When the fourth respondent School sought for the approval of the said appointment, by proceedings dated 24.4.2001, the third respondent returned the application. As against the said proceedings, when the fourth respondent approached the first respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 16.3.2004, the first respondent held that inasmuch as the second respondent was not competent to reallocate the surplus teachers, the very appointment of the appellant was not valid and therefore, no approval can be accorded. The first respondent, therefore, permitted the fourth respondent school to go in for an appointment on consolidated pay from the academic year 2003-2004 as per the existing rules and regulations. Therefore, when the correctness of the order of the first respondent dated 16.3.2004 is examined, the core question that remains for consideration is as to whether the second respondent's sanction in the proceedings dated 24.1.2001 was valid in order to validate the appointment of the appellant, which came to be made as per Form II annexed to the said order. In this context, there was a reference to the proceedings dated 29.7.2000 of the first respondent himself in the order of the second respondent dated 24.1.2001. A direction contained in the said proceedings dated 29.7.2000 is to the following effect: In the said proceedings, the first respondent, while giving guidelines to the subordinates, has made it clear that the concerned Chief Educational Officers can make such reallocation of the surplus teachers for handling classes of Standard VI to XII. 3. Having regard to the said proceedings and inasmuch as the second respondent passed the order dated 24.1.2001 in accordance with the powers vested in him under the said proceedings, the present impugned order of the first respondent dated 16.3.2004 in taking a diametrically different stand altogether cannot be sustained. 3. Having regard to the said proceedings and inasmuch as the second respondent passed the order dated 24.1.2001 in accordance with the powers vested in him under the said proceedings, the present impugned order of the first respondent dated 16.3.2004 in taking a diametrically different stand altogether cannot be sustained. Inasmuch as the second respondent was fully competent as on 24.1.2001 when the appellant's appointment came to be made in the fourth respondent school, the first respondent's action in declining to approve of the said appointment made by the second respondent is on the face of it, illegal and consequently, the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 24.4.2001 as well as the first respondent's order dated 16.3.2004 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, while setting aside the orders impugned, the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders according approval of the appellant's appointment right from the date of his appointment in the fourth respondent school as per the second respondent's proceedings dated 24.1.2001 and for payment of the consequential salary and other benefits. The third respondent shall pass such orders preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ appeal is allowed. W.A.M.P.No.143 of 2005 is closed. No costs.