Judgment : This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Director of School Education, dated 22.6.2006 by which, appointment of the petitioner as an Office Assistant has been denied in the fifth respondents school. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant by an order dated 19.3.2001 on compassionate ground in the fifth respondents school and the fifth respondent has submitted a proposal by his proceedings dated 2.4.2001 to the District Educational Officer, Thuckalay and the same was forwarded by the District Educational Officer to the Chief Educational Officer by his proceedings dated 21.8.2001. Subsequent to the proceedings of the District Educational Officer dated 27.9.2002, post of Office Assistant is also sanctioned to the fifth respondents school for the academic year 2002-2003 and subsequent to this the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil by his letter dated 16.12.2003 has directed the fifth respondent to furnish certain documents in order to get the relaxation order from the Government. That apart, by proceedings dated 31.1.2006 the post of office Assistant sanctioned for the academic year 2005-2006 was also allowed to continue. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequent to this also, the proposals were forwarded for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, but the same has been rejected on the ground that no prior permission was sought for by the fifth respondents school. As such, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner cannot be permitted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as far as the appointment of non-teaching post is concerned, it is covered by the Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as far as the teaching staff are concerned, Rule 15(4) will apply. As far as non-teaching staff are concerned, there is no specific provision to get a prior permission for making an appointment in any category of non teaching staff and prior approval is required only in respect of the teaching staff. As such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason basing on which the impugned order is passed, is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. As such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason basing on which the impugned order is passed, is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. That apart, according to the learned counsel, in addition to this, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. Basing on this also, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners appointment has to be approved. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government advocate has submitted that in respect of his repeated efforts, he could not get any instruction from the respondents. As such, the issue is decided basing on the available material. 6. The petitioner has been appointed on a compassionate ground by an order dated 19.3.2001. As per the said appointment order also, the vacancy in which, the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis. As per Rule 15 of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 any regular vacancy should be filled on regular basis alone. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Rule 15 there is a specific provision with regard to the seeking of the prior permission for the teaching staff. As far as non-teaching staff are concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no provision for seeking prior permission for making an appointment. Basing on this, the petitioners appointment cannot be held as not in conformity with the provisions of the Private Schools Regulation Act. That apart, it is not the case of the respon-dents-department also that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. The only ground basing on which the approval was rejected is that the prior permission was not sought for. But as per relevant rule, no need to get prior permission with regard to the appointment of non-teaching staff. As such the impugned proceeding is not in conformity with the statuary provisions. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to approve the petitioners appointment with effect from 31.1.2006 on compassionate ground with all the consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. For these reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2006 are closed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.