Judgment :- (Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent against the order of the learned Judge Mr. Justice Y. Venkatachalam, dated 24 .03.1998 made in W.P.No.5617 of 1989.) P. Sathasivam, J. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.03.1998 made in Writ Petition No.5617 of 1989, in and by which the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 11.03.1994 made in Writ Appeal No.1671 to 1674 of 1992 (V. Kannan and others vs. Corporation of Madras and others), the writ petitioner/appellant is entitled to a similar relief. In addition to the same, she also brought to our notice that following the above said Division Bench decision, another Division Bench also granted similar relief on 14.12.2004 in Writ Appeal No.213 of 1998 (M. Shyamala vs. Commissioner of Corporation and another), in favour of the appellant therein. 4. Though learned counsel for the respondents contended that person who appointed the writ petitioner is not the competent and concerned authority, in view of the above referred two Division Bench decisions and of the fact that the Corporation has not challenged the same before the Appellate Court, we are not inclined to accept the said contention. Following the decision rendered in Writ Appeal No.1671 to 16 74 of 1992 dated 11.03.1994, the present writ appeal is allowed. No costs.