Judgment :- The petitioner is the management of a Private Aided School at Uppukottai, Theni District. They have filed the present Writ Petition seeking to set aside the return endorsement made by the third respondent District Educational Officer, Uthamapalayam dated 17.12.2009 on the application sent by the petitioner School dated 22.10.2009 and for a consequential direction to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent as a Sewing Teacher (Craft Teacher) with effect from 12.10.2009. 2. The petitioners application for approving the appointment of the 5th respondent was returned with an endorsement that they should enclose the prior approval for filling up the post granted by the Chief Educational Officer. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the return endorsement made on the application submitted by them. 3. Mr.Sellapandian, learned counsel for the petitioner states that already a petition was given to the Chief Educational Officer. When they have filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.15718 of 2007, this Court by an order dated 12.12.2007 directed the State Government to consider their representation. It is stated that so far neither the State Government nor the Chief Educational Officer had granted any order in favour of the petitioners school for filling up the post of Craft Teacher. Without obtaining such an order, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the endorsement made to return the application of the petitioner. 4. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, more particularly Rule 15(1), the number of Teachers and other persons employed in a private school shall not exceed the number of posts sanctioned by the Director of School Education from time to time, with reference to academic requirements, the teacher-pupil ratio, overall financial consideration. Therefore, before appointing the 5th respondent, the petitioner should have got a prior approval to fill up the said post. It is that requirement, which is sought to be demanded is the return made on the petitioners application. 5. Instead of complying with the said direction, the petitioner has filed the second Writ Petition seeking for approval of their action in appointing the 5th respondent. That cannot be granted by this Court unless the petitioner got prior approval to fill up the post. This direction sought for cannot be granted. 6. 5. Instead of complying with the said direction, the petitioner has filed the second Writ Petition seeking for approval of their action in appointing the 5th respondent. That cannot be granted by this Court unless the petitioner got prior approval to fill up the post. This direction sought for cannot be granted. 6. Considering the relevant rules applicable to the private schools, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and others v. Amala Annai Higher Secondary School reported in 2009 (9) SCC 386 has held that sanction of posts is the prerogative of the executive and the courts cannot arrogate to themselves a purely an executive power. Similar view was taken in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Kolawana Gram Vikas Kendra vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in JT 2009 (13) SC 581. In that case, the Supreme Court held that before filling up any post, the school management will have to get prior approval for sanction of the post. 7. In the light of the same, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. If the respondents have not passed the order pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 12.12.2007, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondents and cannot seek to set aside the order note which claims statutory requirement under law. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.