Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.104 School Education Dept. dated 12.07.2002 and consequential G.O.Ms.No.39 School Education Dept. dated 23. 2003 and to direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as Agriculture teacher. 2. Facts in nutshell are as follows:- 5th Respondent School is a minority school run by Minority Educational Agency viz., MSC Schools of Marthandam. In the 5th Respondents school, vacancy arose due to retirement of Agriculture teacher by name Sajojini. In the said vacancy, Petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Teacher on 02.06.2004. 3. Case of the Petitioner is that Petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Teacher in the retirement vacancy which is a sanctioned post. It is averred that since 5th Respondent School is a Minority School and therefore, it does not require prior permission from the Government for appointment of a teacher in the retirement vacancy of already sanctioned post under Rule 15(4) of Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Rules. 5th Respondent School after appointing the Petitioner as Agriculture Teacher on 02.06.2004, sent its proposal for approval of the appointment to 4th Respondent on 11. 2004 and requested to approve the appointment of the Petitioner and pay salary from the date of the appointment. Approval of the Petitioners appointment was not granted on the ground that there is a ban imposed by the 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 23. 2003. 4. Case of the Petitioner is that post being already sanctioned post cannot be discriminated by the Respondents by refusing the appointment of the Petitioner which according to the Petitioner is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 5. Resisting the Petition, Government have filed counter stating that the appointment of Agriculture Teacher in an aided school is banned since 17. 2002. As per the G.O.Ms.No.104 Edn. dated 17. 2002, appointment of Agriculture Teacher is banned. In the G.O.Ms.No.39 Edn. dated 23. 2003, it is clearly stated that after 17. 2002, no Agriculture Teacher should be appointed. 6. Challenging the impugned Government Orders, Mr. K.Ravichandra Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that post is not a newly created post and it was caused due to the vacancy of the retirement of Agriculture teacher Sarojini and it was not kept in view by the 4th Respondent. 2002, no Agriculture Teacher should be appointed. 6. Challenging the impugned Government Orders, Mr. K.Ravichandra Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that post is not a newly created post and it was caused due to the vacancy of the retirement of Agriculture teacher Sarojini and it was not kept in view by the 4th Respondent. Stand of the Petitioner is that lifting of ban was extended to Sewing and Music teachers and not lifting the ban for Agriculture teacher is arbitrary and discriminates the Petitioner. It was further argued that when the post is a sanctioned post available, invoking Government Orders, the authorities cannot refuse to grant approval to the post. 7. Submitting that appointment of Petitioner was on 02.06.2004 evidently after the G.O., Mr. N.Senthilkumar, learned AGP contended that having regard to the financial crisis, Government passed the G.O. imposing certain restrictions with regard to appointment of Special teachers – Agriculture, Carpentry, Weaving teachers and the same cannot be challenged. Learned AGP further submitted that 5th Respondent School being a Government aided school, all its appointments are subject to the Government Orders. Learned AGP further contended that Government issued certain restrictions only to safeguard the Government Exchequer from the loss and the same cannot be challenged as discriminatory. 8. In 5th Respondents school, post of Agriculture Teacher was a sanctioned post. Petitioner was appointed on 02.06.2004 in the said post in the vacancy caused due to the retirement of Agriculture teacher Sarojini. Main contention of the Petitioner is that post of Agriculture teacher being a sanctioned post, ban under G.O.Ms.No.104 School Edn. dated 17. 2002 cannot be invoked. 9. There was a ban in appointment of special teachers – Music, Sewing and Craft teachers. Insofar as, Government schools in G.O.Ms.No.132 School Edn. dated 24. 1998, ban was lifted. In G.O.Ms.No.104 School Edn. dated 17. 2002 benefit was extended to Government aided schools. After G.O.Ms.No.104 School Edn. dated 17. 2002, Government aided schools can only appoint Sewing and Music teachers. As per G.O.Ms.No.104 School Edn. dated 17. 2002, appointment of Agriculture teacher is banned. The relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.104 School Edn. dated 17. 2002 reads as under:- TAMIL 10. The same was again reiterated in G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn. dated 23. 2003. As per G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn. dated 23. 2003, it is clearly stated that after 17. 2002, no Agriculture teacher should be appointed. dated 17. 2002, appointment of Agriculture teacher is banned. The relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.104 School Edn. dated 17. 2002 reads as under:- TAMIL 10. The same was again reiterated in G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn. dated 23. 2003. As per G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn. dated 23. 2003, it is clearly stated that after 17. 2002, no Agriculture teacher should be appointed. Relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn. dated 23. 2003 reads as under:- TAMIL In the said G.O., Government issued directions to comply with the G.O. in the spirit of the order without violating the rules. 11. Petitioner was appointed for the post of Agriculture teacher on 06. 2004, evidently after the G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn. dated 23. 2003. There cannot be a claim for approval of appointment of Agriculture teacher made after 17. 2002. 12. Keeping in view the financial position of the Government, it is within the prerogative, Government imposing certain reasonable restrictions in the appointment of teachers. With regard to the appoint of special teachers – teachers in Agriculture, Carpentry and Weaving, Government issued certain restrictions to safeguard the Government Exchequer from the loss. Therefore, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.104 School Edn. dated 17. 2002 and G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn. dated 23. 2003 cannot be challenged as discriminatory. 13. As pointed out earlier, ban was imposed for appointment of Agriculture teacher after 17. 2002. Petitioner having been appointed on 06. 2004 cannot claim for approval of appointment. Merely because the post is sanctioned post, approval cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As pointed out earlier, in G.O.Ms.No.39 School Edn.dated 23. 2003, the Government has issued directions to comply with the spirit of the G.O. The same cannot be diluted by granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner made on 06. 2004. When the Government has taken austerity measures in imposing restrictions not to appoint special teachers in Agriculture, Craft and Weaving, there cannot be a claim for approval of appointment of Agriculture Teacher. 14. Contending that lack of financial resources cannot be a valid ground for denying the grant of aid to the Minority Institutions, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner placed reliance upon (2008) 4 MLJ 289 [G.Sahadevan Nair v. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Dept., Chennai and others]. In the said case, Division Bench concerned with the right of Minority Institutions in seeking grant in aid. by its Secretary, Education Dept., Chennai and others]. In the said case, Division Bench concerned with the right of Minority Institutions in seeking grant in aid. The ratio of the above decision cannot be invoked to the facts of the present case. 15. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.