Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school with effect from 19.08.1997 and award all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school on 19.08.1997. He was selected among six candidates in the interview which was conducted by the 4th respondent on 19.08.1997. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has acquired the required qualification for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher and he has passed higher secondary and also passed the Teacher Certificate Higher Course examination in 1995 conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board of Govt. of Karnataka which is equivalent to the secondary grade teacher training course certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and the said certificate was also evaluated by the proceedings of the Director of Teacher Education, Chennai on 07.01.1997. The petitioner has also registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Thiruvallur bearing Registration No.11398/95 dated 012. 1995. The 4th respondent school is a private aided school recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu and also a member of an association called “Association of Management of Hindu Educational Institutions” Tamil Nadu. During the year 1996, the first respondent herein issued a proceedings dated 010. 1996 and directed all the private schools to make appointments of teachers, sponsored only through employment exchange. The said proceeding was challenged by the said Association in writ petition No.355 of 1997 before this court and this court dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 03.098. Aggrieved by the said dismissal the Association had taken up the matter by way of writ appeal in W.A.No.696 of 1998 and a Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the above said writ appeal observed that the Educational Institutions are also empowered to call for the applications from other modes apart from notifying the vacancies to the respective employment exchange and select the best of the candidates without there being any preference to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. In the 4th respondent school a vacancy arose in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and the 4th respondent had requested the employment exchange to sponsor the name of suitable candidate by letter dated 22.07.1997. But there was no reply from the Employment Exchange. The 4th respondent sent a reminder on 05.08.1997 and again requested the District Employment Officer to send a list of suitable candidates for appointment to the post of secondary Grade Teacher. But there was no reply for the second time also. Therefore, the 4th respondent gave a publication in the Local Town Panchayat Officer. In response to that publication, the petitioner had applied to the 4th respondent on 09.07.1997 along with 5 other candidates and also attended the interview on 19.08.1997. Based on the performance and merits, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 19.08.1997. Subsequently, the order of the appointment made by the 4th respondent was also approved in pursuant to a resolution passed by the school committee dated 19.08.1997. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been appointed through proper selection process after the employment exchange declined to consider the request of the 4th respondent to sponsor candidates, and that he has been working as a Secondary Grade Teacher till this date. Therefore, the case of the petitioner has to be considered on the basis of the ratio laid down by this Court in W.A.No.696 of 1998 dated 111. 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been working for the last 12 years in the said school after being appointed in accordance with the rules and therefore the second respondent cannot refuse to give approval to the appointment of petitioner in the 4th respondent school. 4. In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the 4th respondent has not followed the proper procedure and made appointment through public advertisement, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be considered. 5. Heard the counsel on both sides. 6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent does not stand to any good reason, because the ratio laid down by this Court in Writ Appeal No.696 of 1998 dated 111. 5. Heard the counsel on both sides. 6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent does not stand to any good reason, because the ratio laid down by this Court in Writ Appeal No.696 of 1998 dated 111. 2002 and W.A.No.688 of 2000 dated 25.02.05 clearly indicate that though it is mandatory on the part of the educational institutions to notify the vacancies to the respective employment exchanges, the educational institutions are also empowered to call for the applications from other modes like newspaper publication, advertisement, media. The 4th respondent has followed the procedure laid down by this Court in Writ Appeal No.696 of 1998. When a permanent vacancy for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacanct due to the death of a Secondary Grade Teacher Mr. S. Mariappan, the 4th respondent, to fillup the said post, work to the employment exchange requesting them to send a list of candidates. There was no reply even on second request. Thereafter, by giving advertisement in the local Town Panchayat Office, six candidates were interviewed only on the basis of merits shown by the petitioner in the said interview, he was selected. Therefore, there is no good reason for denying approval of the appointment of the petitioner in the said school. Hence, this court is of the view, that the writ petition has to be allowed, accordingly the same is allowed by directing the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school with effect from 19.08.1997 with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connection miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.