Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus the 1st respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher with affect from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007 with all consequential benefits. .2. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent school is an aided Middle School governed by the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act. A vacancy arose on 17.02.1998 in the 4th respondent School following the death of one P. Inban, Secondary Grade Teacher. The 4th respondent school had sought for permission to fill up the said vacancy by representation dated 12.03.1998 to the 2nd respondent submitted through the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent recommended and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent by letter dated 13.03.1998. The 4th respondent, in anticipation of permission, has notified the vacancy in the District Employment Exchange on 27.03.1998 and subsequently on 03.04.1998 issued a paper advertisement in Dinamalar inviting applications from suitable woman candidates for the post of secondary Grade Teacher, which fell in BC roster. Pursuant to the paper advertisement, she applied for the said post. On 16.04.1998, the 2nd respondent accorded permission to fill up the said post. In the interview, she was selected and appointed by the 4th respondent on 17.04.1998 as Secondary Grade Teacher. Accordingly, the 4th respondent school submitted a proposal for approval of appointment to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent. .3. On 17.07.1998, the 3rd respondent forwarded the proposal to the 2nd respondent for approval of appointment of the petitioner. Subsequently, there were several correspondences between the 4th respondent school and the Government. As directed by the Government, the 4th respondent school submitted a detailed explanation regarding the appointment of the petitioner. Finally, the 2nd respondent forwarded the same by letter dated 19.06.2002 to the 1st respondent. Even after lapse of about 6 months, there was no response from the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of approval of appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the 4th respondent school submitted representations dated 20.01.2003 and 09.09.2004. Subsequently, the 4th respondent school once again submitted a detailed explanation on 010. 2005 to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent for approval of appointment of petitioner and yet another representation on 23.06.2006. Hence, the 4th respondent school submitted representations dated 20.01.2003 and 09.09.2004. Subsequently, the 4th respondent school once again submitted a detailed explanation on 010. 2005 to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent for approval of appointment of petitioner and yet another representation on 23.06.2006. Though the 2nd respondent by letter dated 05.05.2006 sought the order on the proposal for approval, there was no response from the 1st respondent. In the mean time, on 04.01.2007 the 2nd respondent recommended for approval and sought permission from the 1st respondent for approval of appointment of the petitioner. But, there is no response from the 1st respondent till date. She has been working since 17.04.1998 without any salary in the 4th respondent. In the mean time, a vacancy arose in the school due to retirement of one R. Subbulakshmi, a Secondary Grade Teacher and the 2nd respondent granted permission to fill up that post. The said post fell in OC category. Therefore, the 4th respondent school on 110. 2007 appointed the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher after relieving her from the earlier post on 110. 2007. The 2nd respondent on 012. 2007 approved her appointment. On 212. 2008, she made a representation to the 4th respondent requesting for approval of her appointment from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007 with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, the 4th respondent also submitted a representation dated 212. 2008. The said representations have not been considered. Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner possessed the required qualifications and the 4th respondent School having considered the candidature of the petitioner, appointed her as Secondary Grade Teacher on 17.02.1998. The proposal for approval of her appointment had not been considered by the Government on the ground that she was appointed to the post directly by other mode and not through employment exchange. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 110. 2007 in the vacancy which arose following the retirement of one Ms. R. Subbulakshmi. Thereafter, the Government approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 110. 2007. Despite representations from the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent school dated 212. 2008 and 212. 2008 requesting for approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007, the same have not so far been considered by the Government. R. Subbulakshmi. Thereafter, the Government approved the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 110. 2007. Despite representations from the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent school dated 212. 2008 and 212. 2008 requesting for approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007, the same have not so far been considered by the Government. The petitioner had worked in the 4th respondent school for about 9 years without any salary. The issue is already covered by the judgement of this Court and the appointment of the petitioner along has not been approved giving effect from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007. 5. In reply, the learned Government Advocate (Education) submitted that the writ is not maintainable for the simple reason that the matter is under proper consideration. She would, however, submit that if this Court gives a direction to consider the representations, the respondents 1 to 3 would consider the same as expeditiously as possible. .6. Admittedly, the petitioner was originally appointed on 17.04.1998 as Secondary Grade Teacher in the vacancy which fell at the relevant point of time. No doubt, the petitioner was appointed by the other mode and not through employment exchange. .Before paper advertisement, the 4th respondent school also notified the vacancy to the employment exchange. Despite repeated representations, the appointment of the petitioner had not been approved by the Government. Thereafter, on 110. 2007, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the vacancy which subsequently arose due to retirement. Admittedly, the petitioner was relieved on 110. 2007 from the earlier post. She joined the new post on 110. 2007. on 012. 2007 the Government approved her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher. 7. Though the Assistant Elementary Educational officer has recommended for approval in the year 1998 itself, till date the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher has not been approved. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite repeated representations and the recommendations of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, her appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007 has not been considered. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgement in P. Nageswaran, Madurai District v. District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai and another, (2008) 1 MLJ 1332 , wherein this Court has held thus: “5. 2007 has not been considered. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgement in P. Nageswaran, Madurai District v. District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai and another, (2008) 1 MLJ 1332 , wherein this Court has held thus: “5. The learned counsel further submits that the matter in issue is covered by the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 696 of 1998 dated 111. 2002 and a full Bench of this court in R. Sivakumari v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam (2007) 6 MLJ 1583 : 2007 (5) CTC 561 . In the said Judgements, the Division bench as well as the Full Bench, following the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent malkapatnam, Krishna District v. K.B.N. Visweshwera Rao and others, (1996) 6 SCC 216 : 1997 – I –L.L.J. 567, held that the sponsorship through employment office can be a source and not an exclusive source and the Appointing Authorities are empowered to invite applications through paper Publication and other modes and if appointments are made by giving opportunity to all the candidates to apply, the same is permissible appointments are bound to be approved. 6. In the light of the above judgments, and having regard to the fact that the said teacher was appointed pursuant to the paper publication, the first respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the said teacher with effect from 24.04.--- with salary and other benefits, if her appointment is otherwise in order. 9. The said judgement squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. in the light of the above said judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case this Court is of the opinion, that the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher has got to be approved with effect from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 17.04.1998 to 110. 2007 with all consequential benefits. The said exercise shall be completed with a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.