Judgment :- Mrs. E. Ranganayaki, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 16. 2008 passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of Mr. Kannikairaj with effect from 14.02.2006 with all attendant benefits. 3. The case of the petitioner school is that it is one of the schools run by the C.S.I. Diocese of Madras and it is a Christian religious minority school. The petitioner school was established in the year 1891 and it has got the strength of 784 students and the staff strength of 30 i.e. teaching staff 20 and non-teaching staff 10. According to the petitioner school, it was sanctioned with the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1974. In the said post, one J.E.Christopher was serving and after his death, the said vacancy was not filled up immediately due to the ban on appointments. In the staff fixation report for the academic years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, the said post is available in the petitioner school. In the said vacancy, one Kannikairaj was appointed as Junior Assistant with effect from 12. 2006 and the management submitted a proposal for approval with effect from 211. 2006 due to the fact that previously there was a ban on appointment issued by the Government by G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 211. 2001 and the said ban was lifted by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 07.02.2006. When the proposal was submitted, it was returned on 16. 2008 by stating that it is under the consideration of the Government and the approval for the said appointment cannot be considered now as the reply from the Government is pending. 4. When the proposal was submitted, it was returned on 16. 2008 by stating that it is under the consideration of the Government and the approval for the said appointment cannot be considered now as the reply from the Government is pending. 4. Similar issue as to whether after lifting of the ban, a person appointed in a nonteaching post in an aided school can be kept pending and whether the said person is entitled to get salary atleast from the date on which the ban order was lifted, was considered by me in Writ Petition (MD) No.484 of 2007 by order dated 30.10.2007 and I have allowed the writ petition and in paragraphs 19 and 20, it is held as follows: "Similar ban order issued by the Department on the ground that new norms are contemplated and pending the same no appointment in aided schools are to be made was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.10237 of 1994 by order dated 16.08.1999. Since the petitioner was appointed from 6. 2002 and he is continuously working in the sanctioned post, the respondents may be justified in not approving the appointment of the petitioner from 05.06.2002 to 06.02.2006. The petitioner has got a right to get his appointment approved, once the ban order is lifted. Admittedly, the ban order imposed, not to fill up the posts, was lifted on 07.02.2006. Hence, the petitioner has got every right to get his post approved with salary and other benefits with effect from 07.02.2006. Once the ban order is lifted, the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, comes into operation and the petitioner is deemed to be appointed on regular basis, as he was appointed within the sanctioned post in the fourth respondent school. 20. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 07.02.2006. The third respondent is directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 07.02.2006 and pay arrears of salary from 07.02.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5. The third respondent is directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 07.02.2006 and pay arrears of salary from 07.02.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was challenged by the respondents Education Department in Writ Appeal (MD) No.308 of 2008 and the said writ appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court on 8. 2008. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal by observing as follows: "4. After considering the rival submissions made on either side, following the judgment of the Supreme Court and order of this Court, the learned single Judge set aside the orders of the appellants with a direction to approve the appointment of the respondent/petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 2. 2006 and the third appellant was directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the first respondent with effect from 2. 2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Judge dated 30.10.2007 passed in W.P. (MD) No.484 of 2007. Therefore, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed." 6. In view of the said order passed by me, which was confirmed by the Division Bench, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the third respondent to approve the appointment of the said Kannikai Raj as Junior Assistant in the petitioner school from 14.02.2006 with all benefits and necessary orders are directed to be passed by the third respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and arrears of salary is directed to be paid within four weeks thereafter. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.