JUDGMENT :- F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. This order of reference came to be made by the Division Bench in its order dated 011. 2007 on finding a conflict of view as between two Division Bench Judgments reported in 1995 Writ L.R. 499 and 2003 Writ L.R. 31. 2. The issue relates to appointment of teachers in the private aided schools. The first respondent in the writ appeal preferred Writ Petition No.5643 of 2000 challenging the order of the third appellant dated 9. 99 in proceedings No.O.Mu.9189/Aa4/97 in and by which the third appellant expressed its disinclination to approve the appointment of the first respondent as graduate teacher in the second respondent school. Pending writ petition, in W.P.M.P.No.8556 of 2000 learned Single Judge granted an Order of Interim Injunction restraining the third appellant from terminating the services of the first respondent and also granted further directions to pay salary from the date of interim injunction pending disposal of the writ petition. As against the said interim order, the appellants have come forward with the appeal. 3. The second respondent in W.A.No.1680 of 2002 is a private school to which the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act and Rules are applicable. The first respondent came to be appointed in pursuance of the notification issued by the second respondent notifying the vacancies in a newspaper. The first respondent thus came to be appointed in an existing vacancy as Drawing Master by order dated 8. 1997. The refusal to approve the said appointment came to be made by the third appellant in the light of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.873 dated 111. 1995. The said Government Order in turn came to be issued in the light of an earlier Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1138 dated 29. 1978. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.1138 was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.879 of 1993. The Division Bench in its decision therein reported in 1995 Writ L.R. 499 [State of Tamil Nadu, etc., and 93 others v. The T.N. Recognised Private Schools Managers Assn.,. etc.] upheld the said Government Order and further directed that while the State Government is empowered by the statute to issue directions to the private educational institutions receiving aid as to the mode and manner of filling up of vacancies, the power of the management, in the selection of the candidate is not taken away. etc.] upheld the said Government Order and further directed that while the State Government is empowered by the statute to issue directions to the private educational institutions receiving aid as to the mode and manner of filling up of vacancies, the power of the management, in the selection of the candidate is not taken away. It went on to hold that while making a selection from out of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, in the event of the management finding that no candidate sponsored by Employment Exchange was suitable can seek for the permission of the concerned authority to proceed with the recruitment from the open market. 4. The Division Bench after noting the submission of the counsel appearing for the private educational institutions that for quite some time the posts were not filled up and thereby the students community were put to serious prejudice, directed the State Government to un struct the Employment Exchanges to send the list of candidates within a specified time limit and if no suitable candidate is available, intimate the same to the institutions immediately. Simultaneously,. the Division Bench also directed that appointments so far made up to the date of its judgment should not be affected and that such appointments should be approved by the concerned authorities based on merits. 5. Subsequently, the very same G.O.Ms.No.1138 dated 211. 1998 came up for consideration before another Division Bench and in the decision reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 31 [Nehru Memorial College v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others] the subsequent Division Bench by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 [Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao and Others] as well as Rule 15(4)(i) of the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act 1974, took the view that the said G.O. cannot be implemented. Though the earlier Division Bench decision reported in 1999 Writ L.R.499 was noted by the subsequent Division Bench, in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 [Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao and Others] the subsequent Division Bench by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court took a diametrically opposite view and held that Rule 15(4)(i) of the School Rules alone will prevail and G.O.Ms.No.1138 dated 29. 98 need not be followed. The Division Bench however, held that it is mandatory on the part of the education Institutions who are in receipt of grants to notify the vacancies to the respective Employment Exchanges and that such institutions are also empowered to call for applications from other modes like news-paper publication, advertisement, media and by calling for applications by notifying the same in the notice board, consider all the applications and select the best candidate without there being any preference to candidate from the Employment Exchanges. Having regard to such a conflict noted in the above referred to decisions, the reference came to be made to this larger Bench. 6. Having heard the Government Pleader as well as counsel for the respondents we are inclined to approve the ruling of the subsequent Division Bench reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 31 [Nehru Memorial College v. The State of Tamil Nadu Others]. Such a conclusion is inevitable in the light of the fact that Rule 15(4) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 as well as the consistent rulings of the Honourable Supreme Court in 1996 (6) SCC 216 [Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Vishweshwara Rao and Others] and the subsequent decision reported in 2006 (2) SCC 482 [Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela], 2006 (4) SCC 1 [Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi] and also the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 [Sivakumari, R. v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam]. As rightly held by the Division Bench in the decision reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 31 [Nehru Memorial College v. The state of Tamil Nadu & Others] the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1138 dated 29. 1978 or the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.873 dated 111. 1995 cannot run counter to the above referred to Rule 15 (4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act 1974, which specifically provides the mode of recruitment of teachers in private schools. Rule 15(4)(i) is to the following effect: "15(4). (i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. [(ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the following methods: Promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school. Rule 15(4)(i) is to the following effect: "15(4). (i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. [(ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the following methods: Promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school. If no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method (a) above, Appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers; Appointment of teachers from any other school; Direct recruitment In the case of appointment from any other school or by direct recruitment the school committee shall obtain the prior permission of the District Education Officer in respect of Preprimary, Primary and Middle School and that of the Chief Educational Officer in respect of High schools and Higher Secondary Schools, Teachers Training Institutions setting out the reasons for such appointment. In respect of corporate body running more than one school, the schools under that body shall be treated as one unit for purpose of this rule]. (it) Appointment to the post of Headmaster of Higher Secondary School shall be made by the method specified in clause (ii) either from the category of Head Masters of High Schools or Teachers Training Institutes or from the category of Post Graduate Assistants in academic subjects of post graduate assistants in Languages provided they posses the prescribed qualifications." 7. The said rule does not contemplate of notifying any vacancy to any Employment Exchange. However, having regard to the consistent ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court notifying the vacancies and calling for the sponsorship from the Employment Exchange as directed by the concerned State Government cannot be held to be impermissible in law. In fact the provision of direct recruitment as provided as part of Rule 15(4)(i)(c) would enable the State Government to issue appropriate Government Order directing the private schools who are in receipt of grant in aid to notify such vacancies to the respective Employment Exchange for sponsorship of qualified candidates. In fact the provision of direct recruitment as provided as part of Rule 15(4)(i)(c) would enable the State Government to issue appropriate Government Order directing the private schools who are in receipt of grant in aid to notify such vacancies to the respective Employment Exchange for sponsorship of qualified candidates. As held by the Division Bench in the decision reported in 2003 Writ L.R. 31 [Nehru Memorial College v. The state of Tamil Nadu & Others] such candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange will have to stand in the queue along with other candidates who stake their claim pursuant to other modes such as publication of vacancies in the newspaper, media, Notice Board, etc. After all the interest of the pupil, studying in the school being the primary concern for whom the presence of the best teacher would be more preferable, the scope of selection should be expansive and not restricted to candidates sponsored through Employment Exchange alone. It is the above said perception which weighed with the Honourable Supreme Court in permitting the institutions to go in for other modes of notifying the vacancies in order to widen the scope of selection in order to choose the best available candidate. 8. We therefore, reiterate that having regard to Rule 15(4)(1) of the statutory rules, the existence of G.O.Ms.No.1138 dated 25.09.1978 or G.O.Ms.No.873 dated 111. 1995 cannot in any way restrict the scope of selection to be made by a private institution from appointing any teacher recruited by resorting to other modes, such as newspaper publication etc. We also approve of the ruling of the said Division Bench in the light of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1996(6) SCC 216 [Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others], 2006 (2) SCC 482 [Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayantilal Vaghella], 2006(8) SCC 111 [Arunkumar Nayak v. Union of India]., and 2006 (4) SCC 1 [Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi]. In this context we also refer to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 [Sivakumari.R. v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainillai Asiriyargal Sangam]. The relevant passages in the above referred to decisions can be usefully referred to support our conclusions. 9. In the decision reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 [Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District. In this context we also refer to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 [Sivakumari.R. v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainillai Asiriyargal Sangam]. The relevant passages in the above referred to decisions can be usefully referred to support our conclusions. 9. In the decision reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 [Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District. A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others] the Honourable Supreme Court has stated as under in paragraph 6: "6. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority /establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange, and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidate to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishments should call for the names by publication in the newspapers, having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fairplay would be sub-served. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." (Emphasis added) 10. In 2006 (2) SCC 482 [Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela] the Honourable Supreme Court has stated the legal position as under in paragraph 12: "12. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the Employment Exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution." 11. In 2006 (8) SCC 111 [Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India] paragraph 9 reads as under: "9. This Court in Visweshwara Rao, therefore, held the intimation to the Employment Exchange about the vacancy and candidates sponsored from the Employment Exchange is mandatory. In 2006 (8) SCC 111 [Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India] paragraph 9 reads as under: "9. This Court in Visweshwara Rao, therefore, held the intimation to the Employment Exchange about the vacancy and candidates sponsored from the Employment Exchange is mandatory. This Court also held that in addition and consistent with the principle of fair play, justice and equal opportunity, the appropriate department or establishment should also call for the names by publication in the news-papers having wider circulation, announcement on radio, television and employment news bulletins and consider all the candidates who have applied. This view was taken to afford equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates in the matter of employment. The rationale behind such direction is also consistent with the second public policy that wider the opportunity of the notice of vacancy by wider publication in the newspapers, radio, television and employment news bulletin, the better candidates with better qualifications are attracted, so that adequate choices are made available and the best candidates would be selected and appointed to sub serve the public interest better. " (Emphasis added) 12. In 2006 (4) SCC 1 [Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi] it is held as under in para 6: "6. it is recognized that no Government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the Rules so framed." 13. The above decision has been relied upon for the proposition that having regard to Rule 15(4)(1) of the Rules, it is imperative that apart from sponsorship to be notified from the Employment Exchanges the private institutions receiving aid will be justified and will be in order in resorting to other modes of recruitment in order to select the best candidate. In the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 [Sivakuntarai. R. v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam] at page 573 in para 24, it has been stated as under: "24. In the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 [Sivakuntarai. R. v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam] at page 573 in para 24, it has been stated as under: "24. Therefore, if the recruitment of about four thousand secondary grade teachers to the Government Schools, were to be made in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have followed the following procedure namely Notify the Employment Exchanges. Issue publications in newspapers having wide circulation, inviting applications. Display the notification in the notice boards of the respective offices or make announcements in the media." 14. In the light of the overwhelming decisions referred to above and for the reasons mentioned earlier, we hold that the subsequent Division Bench decision reported In 2003 Writ L.R. 31 [Nehru Memorial College v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others] alone will hold good and the earlier decision reported in 1995 Writ L.R. 499 need not be followed. 15. In the case on hand though the appointment of the first respondent came to be made by way of a direct recruitment without reference to Employment Ex-change, we hold that in as much as such appointment of the first respondent came to be made on merits, it will be in order for the appellants to approve of his appointment and pay the salary along with arrears from the date of his appointment and continue to pay the same till the completion of his service. 16. We therefore dismiss the writ appeal and allow the writ petition. The order made in the writ petition is set aside and the appellants are directed to pass appropriate orders approving the appointment of the first respondent from the date of his initial appointment and pay the arrears of salary after due fixation and also continue to pay the future salary as applicable to him till the completion of his service. No cost.