Judgment :- The petitioner being the Secretary of an Aided Elementary School, has challenged an order passed by the third respondent, dated 30.01.2009, and the consequential order of the fourth respondent dated 05.03.2009, directing surrender of one Secondary Grade Teacher post as surplus from the petitioner’s school. 2. The petitioner’s school which was established in the year 1946 initially as a primary school is an aided institution and governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act and the rules framed thereunder. The post of Head Master in the school fell vacant on account of the retirement of an incumbent on 31.05.2006. Since, there was no Secondary Grade Teacher with five year teaching experience available, the post of Head Master was not filled up. In the meantime, a vacancy arose in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.06.2008, due to retirement of an incumbent. The third respondent by proceedings dated 31.07.2008, granted permission to fill up the post and accordingly, one Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi was selected and appointed pursuant to the resolution passed by the School Committee on 20.08.2008. The said appointment was forwarded to the Department for approval. Whileso, on 27.08.2008, the fourth respondent inspected the school and certified that this school has sufficient strength to accommodate the said Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher and forwarded the proposal to the third respondent for approval. However, the third respondent by order dated 31.12.2008, rejected the proposal and declined to approve the appointment of Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher. It appears that the basis of rejection was no account of his surprise inspection conducted on 11.12.2009 and that there was no sufficient students strength. Consequent upon the rejection of approval, the third respondent by the impugned proceedings, directed one post of Secondary Grade Teacher to be surrendered to the common pool for being allotted to a needy school. This order is impugned in this writ petition. 3. The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the respondents failed to follow the norms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997, for fixation of staff strength for assessment of grant for teaching post and that the respondents failed assessment of grant for teaching post and that the respondents failed to follow the dictum of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Director of Elementary Education vs. S. Vigila, 2006 (5) CTC 385 . It is seen that the petitioner also filed W.P.No.14708 of 2009, challenging the order passed by the third respondent herein dated 31.01.2008, refusing to approve the appointment of Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher and this Court by order dated 19.04.2010 allowed the writ petition on the following terms: “9. Admittedly, as per the inspection report of the third respondent dated 27.08.2008, the petitioner is entitled to get the approval for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The impugned order has been passed based upon the subsequent inspection dated 11.12.2008. A perusal of the report dated 27.08.2008 would show that there are two sections functioning in class IV. The said report also indicates that the strength per class was 61 students. The letter dated 06.09.2008 sent by the third respondent to the second respondent would indicate that the total strength of the class IV was 70 and the available students was 61. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is having two sections as seen by the Inspection Report dated 27.08.2008 made by the third respondent. The Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 (Director of Elementary Education v. S. Vigila) as observed as follows: “23. Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner: (1) The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. should be primarily considered by taking each individual standard/section as a unit. (2) The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards/Section in a school. In other words, if there are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be five, out of which one would be the Headmaster. (3) If the students’ strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the sanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required.” 10. The said judgment followed by the Division Bench reported in The District Elementary Educational Officer v. S. Rachel Jeyapaulin and others) has held as follows: “7. The said judgment followed by the Division Bench reported in The District Elementary Educational Officer v. S. Rachel Jeyapaulin and others) has held as follows: “7. Following the above said directions, the learned Single Judge has found that there was nothing in the counter affidavit dated 05.03.2007, to the Full Bench decision of this Court which binds not only the appellant but also the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai as he was a party to the decision. Relying on Paragraph 23(2) of the said judgment that the minimum strength of the teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards/Section in a school, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of transfer and further directed the appellant to re-do the exercise of fixing norms in the light of the Full Bench judgment cited supra. 8. The applicability of the Full Bench judgment to the facts of this case has not been questioned in the memorandum of appeal excepting to repeat that the norms laid down in the above G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department dated 29.12.1997 were followed. As the fixation of staff strength itself has been found to be contrary to the Full Bench decision, we do not find that there is any ground to interfere with the order which is impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. 9. Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that she is working in the second respondent school without salary since 31.01.2007, the appellant is directed to disburse the salary and other monetary benefits to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 11. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In so far as the other contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, this Hon’ble Court in ( 2006 (1) M.L.J. 317 (Aided Elementary School v. State of Tamil Nadu) has held that the strength of the students in August should be taken into consideration. The observation of the Division Bench is extracted hereunder: “9. In so far as the other contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, this Hon’ble Court in ( 2006 (1) M.L.J. 317 (Aided Elementary School v. State of Tamil Nadu) has held that the strength of the students in August should be taken into consideration. The observation of the Division Bench is extracted hereunder: “9. With regard to second contention, even though the G.O.Ms.No.525, came into effect from 1.6.1998, it could not be implemented on account of pendency of writ petitions and writ appeals till November, 2000. After the dismissal of the writ appeals, the Government Order had been implemented by taking into account the strength of students in August, 2001. It is perfectly valid, since the Government Order has been upheld and the same had been implemented in accordance with law and therefore no exception can be taken by the petitioners. The fact that there has been increase in the strength of students subsequently or number of teachers has dwindled by retirement, etc., cannot be a ground to invalidate the impugned order. It is also the submission of the Government in the event of any particular order being incorrect and inconsistent with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.525, they had been corrected by appropriate orders. As the Government Order has been upheld finally and that the Government had implemented the Government Order strictly in accordance with its terms, the impugned orders cannot be invalidated and the respondents need not be directed to re-do the exercise.” 12. Hence considering the above said ratio laid down by the Division bench and also considering the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.1820 dated 21.11.1984, this Court is of the opinion that even on the second ground regarding the period of inspection and the consequential strength to be taken into consideration, the order impugned is liable to be set aside, since it has taken into consideration the strength available as on 11.12.2008 as against the earlier inspection made by the third respondent. 13. Considering the above said legal principle and applying the facts on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for the approval of the appointment of Mrs. 13. Considering the above said legal principle and applying the facts on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for the approval of the appointment of Mrs. Vijayalakshmi as Secondary Grade Teacher, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 4. In view of the above referred decision, which has been rendered after taking note of the norms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.525, the decision of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court and two others decisions of this Court, it has to be necessarily held that the order impugned in this writ petition is required to be set aside. 5. It is not in dispute that the impugned order in this writ petition was a consequence to the rejection of the approval of the appointment of Tmt. V. Vijayalakshmi which has been quashed by this Court in the aforementioned order. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.