Judgment :- This writ petition is filed by an aided School seeking for quashing the order dated 04. 2005 passed by the third respondent in so far as the direction issued by him to terminate the services of the fifth respondent is concerned and also for a further direction to allow the fifth respondent to continue to work in the petitioner school with full salary and other benefits from April 2005. .2. According to the writ petitioner, the School was recognised as the Primary School and was also granted aid by the Department from the year 1972 and subsequently, it was upgraded as a Middle School. It is stated that 21 Secondary Grade Teachers posts are sanctioned and 835 students are undergoing school education in Tamil Medium alone. When three Secondary Grade Teachers retired from service, the petitioner applied for permission to fill up the said posts. The third respondent, vide his proceedings dated 111. 2003, granted permission to fill up the said posts by appointing Junior Grade B.T. Assistants as per the Rules following communal roster. The petitioner Management requested the Professional and Executive, Employment Exchange to sponsor the names. The names were also sponsored by the Professional and Executive Employment Office, Chennai – 4, by proceedings dated 111. 2003. Further, an advertisement was given in newspaper Daily Thanthi for the said vacancy. The petitioner Management, by following the proper procedure, selected the fifth respondent and appointed him with effect from 112. 2003 as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant and accordingly, he joined duty on 112. 2003. The fifth respondent passed B.A. Degree in History in April 1987 and B.Ed. Degree in May 1995 from the Madras University. According to the writ petitioner, the said appointment of Junior Grade B.T. Assistant was made in terms of G.O.No.125 School Education (X2) Department dated 111. 2003 which states that persons with B.A. / B.Sc. with B.Ed. can be appointed to the said post and the fifth respondent satisfies the qualifications prescribed in the above said G.O. Subsequent to the appointment, the fifth respondent is teaching English language to the students of VI to VIII standards. However, it was stated by the third respondent by proceedings dated 04. with B.Ed. can be appointed to the said post and the fifth respondent satisfies the qualifications prescribed in the above said G.O. Subsequent to the appointment, the fifth respondent is teaching English language to the students of VI to VIII standards. However, it was stated by the third respondent by proceedings dated 04. 2005 that the previous District Elementary Educational Officer erroneously approved the appointment of the fifth respondent and 15 other teachers and it has caused loss to the Government and, therefore, the Schools were directed to terminate the services of those teachers including the fifth respondent. 3. At the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court ordered status quo as on 20.4.2005 and by virtue of the same, the fifth respondent is continuing in the said post. This interim order was sought to be vacated by the third respondent and he had filed a counter affidavit dated 18. 2005. 4. According to the third respondent, the earlier approval granted to fill up the posts, was erroneously made even though the aided private schools are eligible to appoint Junior Grade B.T. Assistants in terms of the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974. .5. With reference to the special requirement of the School for appointment of Junior Grade B.T. Assistants, it is covered by G.O.Ms.No.100 School Education Department dated 26. 2003. But, since the fifth respondent does not come within the special requirement, his appointment was clearly illegal. According to G.O.Ms. No.100 School Education Department dated 26. 2003, in the vacancies arising out of the retirement of the Secondary Grade Teachers, graduate teachers can be appointed but such graduate teachers must be qualified in Mathematics, Science or English. It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the said G.O. that necessary amendments will be issued to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 and thereafter, the aided private Schools will be given appropriate advise on filling up the vacancies. It is stated that no such amendments have been made to the statutory rules. Therefore, there is no impediment for the schools in appointing a graduate Teacher in other discipline also. It must be stated here that every Government Order will not ipso facto apply to private schools, which are governed by the provisions of the Private Schools Act and the Rules made therein. 6. Therefore, there is no impediment for the schools in appointing a graduate Teacher in other discipline also. It must be stated here that every Government Order will not ipso facto apply to private schools, which are governed by the provisions of the Private Schools Act and the Rules made therein. 6. A Full Bench of this Court in its decision reported in 1995 W.L.R. 277 [The Saliar Mahajana Higher Secondary School, Aruppukkottai vs. the joint Director of Schools (Higher Secondary), Madras – 6 and others] held in paragraph 11 as follows: Para 11: “The single Judge before whom this writ petition came expressed a doubt as to the correctness of the view taken in the aforesaid Bench judgment as in his opinion R.2 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.720 has not been taken note by the Division Bench. R.2 as pointed out above merely makes the rule applicable to private Schools mutatis mutandis. That does not mean that all the provisions found in G.O.Ms.No.720 will automatically have to be imported in the case of private Schools. They have to be modified suitably in so far as their application to private schools are concerned. If that test is applied, there can be no difficulty in holding that with regard to Private Schools, there having been no constitution of service by any Rule and there having been no definition of the expression “Teachers in academic subjects and Teachers in languages”, the normal rule that the post of Headmaster has to be filled up by promotion from among the Teachers in subjects and Teachers in languages is clear.” Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying approval to the said teacher is not proper. 7. Apart from this, on the very same issue, this Court vide its judgment reported in 2006 (5) CTC 504 [The Corporate Manager, CSI Corporate Schools, Nagercoil vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and others] held in paragraph 13 as follows: Para 13: “The impugned order is also in violation of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules, wherein it is not stipulated anywhere that the particular school should follow the subject, roster. Even G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 111. 2003, which is governing the appointment of Middle Grade Graduate Teachers in standards 6 to 8, nowhere states that subject-wise roster should be followed. Even G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 111. 2003, which is governing the appointment of Middle Grade Graduate Teachers in standards 6 to 8, nowhere states that subject-wise roster should be followed. In the absence of anything contained in the said Government Order, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned circular and if at all subject roster is to be followed by the management, it is the Government who is competent to issue the subject roster in accordance with Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.” 8. Further, this Court, in a batch of cases reported in 2004 W.L.R. 248 [Viveka Poorana Aided Elementary School, Cuddalore vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Madras and others] held in paragraph 12 as follows: Para 12: “Learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners represented that in some of the cases by virtue of interim order obtained from this Court appointments have been made specifically subject to the Government Order that may be passed. Inasmuch as the Government Order No.100 dated 26. 2003 does not govern the appointments in private aided school, that Government Order is not applicable to them. Hence, those appointments will have to be considered as valid notwithstanding the impugned circulars. In some other cases, some appointments have already been made before 6. 2003 but approval has not been given in view of the impugned circulars. Inasmuch as the impugned circulars are held invalid in so far as it relates to the writ petitioners and inasmuch as no Government Order has been passed so far relating to the aided private schools the appointments made does not suffer from any illegality; in so far as the appointments made before the issuance of the impugned circular there is no ground to refuse the grant of approval. But it is for the authorities to consider the same and pass orders. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider those cases within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and pass orders.” 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition shall stand allowed. The third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the fifth respondent with effect from April 2005 and release the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. The third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the fifth respondent with effect from April 2005 and release the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand closed.