Judgment :- The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the impugned order dated 30.12.2005 and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Headmaster with effect from 01.06.2000 with all consequential benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the Primary School at Panankulam establilshed and administered by the fourth respondent Management, from 31.03.1999 due to the retirement of one Headmaster named J. Daniel. The fourth respondent appointed the petitioner from 01.06.2000 since the petitioner is having the qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed. The Third respondent rejected the proposal for approval on the ground that the petitioner was without five years teaching experience and a graduate teacher cannot be appointed in the Secondary Grade Headmaster vacancy terms of G.O. Ms. No.559 dated 11.07.1995. The fourth respondent Management filed an appeal before the first respondent by stating that the petitioner had five years experience in a recognized Matriculation school and C.O. Ms. No.559 is not applicable for the post of Headmaster. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P. No.21006 of 2006 and by order dated 011. 2006, the appointment of one T. Subbulakshmi who is also graduate like the petitioner was approved and for not having five years experience, one N.S. Meenakshi who was appointed from 25.09.1998 was granted approval on condition that she will get the salary as Headmaster only on completion of five years of her experience. The said order was challenged in W.A. 442 of 2007 and paragraph 3 and of the said judgment read as follows: “Four reasons are given by the Department for not granting approval to the appointment of the first respondent as Headmistress of the second respondent school. The first reason is that without five years’ experience the appointment of Primary School Headmistress was made. This ground was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge in view of the G.O.Ms. No.97 dated 05.07.2001 relaxing the requirement of five years experience. The first reason is that without five years’ experience the appointment of Primary School Headmistress was made. This ground was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge in view of the G.O.Ms. No.97 dated 05.07.2001 relaxing the requirement of five years experience. As far as the second ground, viz., without obtaining the prior permission from the District Elementary Education Officer, the appointment was made is concerned, it is stated that though the school management has sought prior approval for appointing the Headmistress to the school, there was no response from the authorities concerned and since the school could not be run without a Headmistress, the School management was constrained to call for applications for appointment through employment exchange and through publication in newspaper and appointed the first respondent as Headmistress on 25-9-1998. When the Department has failed to consider the school management’s application dated 3-3-1998 for grant of prior approval for appointment of Headmistress and the subsequent requests request, the second reason given for not granting the approval, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, is unsustainable. The third reason is the Headmistress possesses higher qualifications for the post of Primary School Headmistress without required qualification. This ground is also without any merit. In a similar situation, the appointment of one T. Subbulakshmi, who is also a graduate like the first respondent herein, was approved vide G.O. (2D) No.4 dated 2. 2004. The last ground is that the appointment was not made from 11-7-1995 to 19-5-1998 as stipulated in G.O. Ms. No.155 School Education Department (second defendant) dated 010. 2002 but the appointment was made on 25-9-1998. On a plain reading of the said Government order, it is seen that it is applicable only to the appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher and not to the appointment of Headmistress. 4. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. We however, make it clear that our order should not be treated as precedent in any other case. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 4. 4. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. We however, make it clear that our order should not be treated as precedent in any other case. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the first Bench of this Court, the Department has approved the appointment of N.S. Meenakshi as Headmistress on condition that till she completes five years experience, she will be paid Secondary Grade scale of pay and after completion of five years experience, she will be paid the Headmistress scale of pay. 5. In the light of the above orders, the impugned order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the second respondent is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim for approval without reference to G.O. Ms.No.559, Education, dated 11.07.1995 and pass orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of his order. It is made clear that if the petitioner satisfies the requirement of five years of teaching experience, he is entitled to get approval of his appointment from the date of his appointment and otherwise, he is entitled to get approval as Headmaster with the scale of pay of Secondary Grade teacher for five years and on completion of five years, he is eligible to get the scale of pay of primary school Headmaster. The writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.