Judgment :- The petitioner was appointed as Primary School Headmaster through Employment Exchange on 20.12.1999 in the 4th respondent school. Before the appointment of the petitioner as Primary School Headmaster in the said School, the 4th respondent School called for qualified candidates from the Employment Exchange to fill up the post of Primary School Headmaster which was vacant from 24.07.1998, due to the death of the then Headmaster S. Sundaramahalingam on 23.07.1998. Subsequently, another Secondary Grade Teacher S. Sundaraj retired on 31.05.1999 and that post was also vacant. The only teacher who joined as Secondary Grade Teacher on 25.09.1997 did not have the five years teaching experience. Further, she relinquished the Headmistress post. Therefore, the School sought permission to fill up the post of Primary School Headmaster. The 3rd respondent by an order dated 11.06.1999 in proceeding Na. Ka. No. 2310/A3/99, granted permission to fill up the post through Employment Exchange. 2. Thereafter 4th respondent school sought the list of candidates with five years teaching experience for the post of Primary School Headmaster from the District Employment Exchange. The District Employment Exchange. The District Employment Exchange by letter dated 19.08.1999, gave no objection certificate due to non availability of suitable candidates. Therefore, the School issued a paper publication in Dinamalar dated 07.09.1999, inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of primary School Headmaster. In the meanwhile, the school also sought permission from the Assistant Elementary Education Officer to fill up the post for B. Ed., qualified Headmaster, but the Assistant Elementary Education Officer directed the school to wait till a suitable candidate is available in the Employment Exchange. 3. In the meanwhile, since a paper publication was given, pursuant to the paper publication, the petitioner S.Sattanathan having B.Sc., B.Ed.., qualification applied for the post of primary School Headmaster in the 4th respondent School. Since the petitioner was having B.Sc., B.Ed.., qualification, his candidature was considered for appointment and the School Committee had selected and appointed him as primary School Headmaster in permanent vacancy on 20.12.1999, based on the resolution of the school committee, even when the petitioner did not have five years teaching experience, due to shortage of teaching staffs in the school from 01.06.1999 and in the welfare of the students. 4. 4. The appointment papers of the petitioner were sent by the 4th respondent School for approval to the 3rd respondent seeking permission from the 3rd respondent through the Assistant Elementary Education Officer on 10.01.2000. The 3rd respondent recommended and forwarded the proposal paper to the 2nd respondent on 18.09.2000 and 210. 2000. By the impugned order dated 08.01.2001, the 2nd respondent rejected the approval of the School on the ground that highly qualified person cannot be appointed in the post of primary school Headmaster. As against that, the School filed revision petition dated 110. 2002. to the 1st respondent and as the 1st respondent did not pass any order, the 4th respondent school filed a W.P. No. 9313 of 2006 before the Hon’ble High Court for direction. By an order dated 110. 2006, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition and pass orders in accordance with law. 5. In pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the 1st respondent rejected the revision petition and refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner by impugned letter in I. D. No. 105, dated 28.03.2007. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, again the petitioner submitted a mercy petition dated 211. 2007, to the 1st respondent, requesting for approval of the petitioner’s appointment in the light of G. O. 2D. No. 4, dated 10.02.2004. Since no orders have been passed till date, the present writ petition is filed. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in response to the paper publication given by the 4th respondent School, applied for the post of primary School Headmaster and for the reason that no one was available with the suitable qualifications, the petitioner was appointed. The petitioner’s appointment was not considered for approval by the 3rd respondent, for the reason that the petitioner is not having five years teaching experience. If the petitioner was not appointed in the 4th respondent school, he might have got opportunities in other schools. Since, the 4th respondent school has appointed the petitioner on 20.12.1999 and having allowed the petitioner to work for a considerable period of 10 years now cannot refuse to grant permission. 7. If the petitioner was not appointed in the 4th respondent school, he might have got opportunities in other schools. Since, the 4th respondent school has appointed the petitioner on 20.12.1999 and having allowed the petitioner to work for a considerable period of 10 years now cannot refuse to grant permission. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the impugned order cannot be found fault with as the petitioner was not having the five years teaching experience, at the time of appointment and therefore, the 1st respondent has rightly passed the impugned order. 8. In similar circumstances, various orders have been passed by the 1st respondent, granting permission to relax the basic condition of five years teaching experience, as not necessary. Further, this Court has also considered similar issues in various orders. This Court in W.P. No. 4542 of 2006, dated 210. 2008 and W.A. No. 442 of 2007, dated 20.03.2007, while dealing with a similar issue, which came-up for consideration, has directed the 1st respondent to accord approval, for the reason that the concerned teacher has acquired the necessary qualification of five years teaching experience after appointment. Again, in W.P. No. 4542 of 2006, dated 210. 2008, another well reasoned orders has been passed by the learned single judge, by setting aside a similar impugned order of the 2nd respondent with a direction to consider the similarly placed petitioners, claiming for approval with reference to G.O. Ms. No. 559 dated 11.07.1995. So in view of the various orders passed by this Court, as well as with sufficient independent Government G.O. 2D. No. 4, dated 10.02.2004, approving similar appointment by granting exemption from possessing the basic five years teaching experience, the case of the petitioner is to be allowed. No doubt, the petitioner at the time of his appointment did not possess the five years teaching experience, but by now , he has acquired more than ten years of teaching experience, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 9. This Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner shall be allowed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. 9. This Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner shall be allowed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. In view of the same, this Court directs the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner of the petitioner as primary School Headmaster in the 4th respondent School with effect from 20.12.1999 in the light of the order in W.P. No. 4542/2008 dated 210. 2008 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear the petitioner is entitled to get approved as Headmaster with the scale of pay of Secondary Grade Teacher for first five years form 20.12.1999 and after 5 years thereafter, the petitioner is eligible to get the scale of pay of primary School Headmaster.