Judgment : 1. By consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in this writ petition is to a writ of mandamus, directing the respond. To approve the selection of Secondary Grade Teacher Ms. R. Venkatalakshmi dated 4.4.2006 in Gandhiji Primary School, Pottulapatti, T. Vadipatti, Madurai District and its consequential benefits due to the said candidate. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the petitioner school, five teaching posts were sanctioned and subsequently, the teaching posts were reduced to three and from out of three posts sanctioned, one Secondary Grade Teacher i.e., Ms. B. Getsie retired on 31.5.2004 and for filling up the said vacancy, the petitioner school applied for permission under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, before the first respondent. By order dated 10.2.2006, the first respondent gave per-mission to fill up the said vacancy as per Rules. On 16.2.2006, the petitioner school requested the Employment Office, Madurai, to furnish a list of candidates within 10 days. The Employment Office, Madurai, received the said request of the petitioner school. However, no list was forwarded by the Employment Office, Madurai. Therefore, the petitioner school made a Paper Publication In "Dinamalar Daily" on 17.2.2006, inviting candidates for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers. As per the said Paper Publication, several candidates applied and the Employment Office did not sponsor any name of the candidate for selection. The petitioner school conducted interview on 8.3.2006 and also on 17.3.2006. Since no candidates were found eligible, further communication was sent on 22.4.2006 and the said R. Venkatalakshmi was selected for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and she was offered with appointment order and she joined in service as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 24.4.2006. A proposal for proving the said appointment was submitted fore the first respondent on 24.5.2006 and date, no order is passed by the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner school submits that the first respondent is keeping matter pending, since the said teacher was appointed without reference to the sponsorship from the Employment Office and she was appointed based an invitation of application through Paper Publication. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner school submits that the first respondent is keeping matter pending, since the said teacher was appointed without reference to the sponsorship from the Employment Office and she was appointed based an invitation of application through Paper Publication. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the matter in issue is covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.696 of 1998 dated 12.11.2002 and a Full Bench of this Court in R. Sivakumari Vs. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edaihilai Asiriyargal Sangm (2007) 6 MLJ 1583 : 2007(5) CTC 561 ). In the said Judgments, the Division Bench as well as the Full Bench, following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 216 : 1997-I-LLJ-567, held that the sponsor-ship through employment office can be a source and not an exclusive source and the Appointing Authorities are empowered to invite applications through Paper Publication and other modes and if appointments are made by giving opportunity to all the candidates to apply, the same is permissible appointments are bound to be approved. 6. In the light of the above judgments, and having regard to the fact that the said teacher was appointed pursuant to the Paper Publication, the first, respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the said teacher with effect from 24.4.2006 with salary and other benefits, if her appointment is otherwise in order. 7. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs. Ordered accordingly.