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 22. 2007 passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents to accord approval to the appointment of Mr. S. Christopher Devakadatcham as Office Assistant w.e.f 2. 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 1908 and it has got the strength of 486 students and the staff strength of 17 i.e. teaching staff 16 and non-teaching staff 1. According to the petitioner school, it was sanctioned with the post of Office Assistant in the year 1995. In the said post, one D. Zachariah was serving and subsequently, he was transferred and promoted as Laboratory Assistant on 1. 2007. In the staff fixation report for the academic years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, the said post of Office Assistant is available in the petitioner school. In the said vacancy, one S. Christopher Devakadatcham was appointed as Office Assistant with effect from 8. 2005 and the management submitted a proposal for approval with effect from 19. 2005 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 originally in October 2005 by stating that as W.P.M.P.No.12889 of 2005 in W.P.No.11798/2005 is pending before this Court, the proposal can be considered only after the disposal of the said writ petition. The proposal was again resubmitted on 28. 2006 to the third respondent, which was returned by stating that no proceeding from the second respondent is received for approval of nonteaching posts in aided school. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The proposal was again resubmitted on 28. 2006 to the third respondent, which was returned by stating that no proceeding from the second respondent is received for approval of nonteaching posts in aided school. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 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 S. Christopher Devakadatcahm as Office Assistant in the petitioner school from 8. 2005 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. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 are closed.