Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 17.6.2009 passed by the second respondent and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of G. Kumar, B.Sc. B.Ed. as Graduate Head Master of the petitioner Middle School w.e.f. 17.12.2002 with all consequential benefits. 2. According to the petitioner-school, the petitioner-school was originally started as a Primary School in the year 1924 and the school was upgraded as Middle School in the year 1960. For the school, one Graduate Teacher, two Secondary Grade Teacher, one Secondary Grade Headmaster, and one Craft Teacher posts are sanctioned. The then Secondary Grade Headmaster, namely Ganapathy retired from service, and the school made a representation on 30.4.2002 to the Department to up-grade the Primary School Headmaster post as Middle School Headmaster post and the third respondent by his proceedings dated 4.7.2002 granted permission to upgrade the post and to fill up the post. Thereafter, a list from the Employment Exchange was obtained and after conducting interview on 16.12.2002, one G. Kumar was selected and appointed as Middle School Headmaster on 17.12.2002 and proposal for approval was submitted with a request to grant exemption for not having five years of teaching experience. On 14.6.2006, the second respondent ratified the order of the third respondent dated 4.7.2002, upgrading the post of Secondary Grade Headmaster as Graduate Headmaster (Middle School Headmaster). The approval of appointment of the said G. Kumar as Graduate Headmaster was rejected by the impugned order stating that at the time of appointment, the said G. Kumar was not having five years of teaching experience. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no candidate with five years of teaching experience was available for selection and therefore till completion of five years of teaching experience, the appointment of G. Kumar may be approved as B.T. Assistant and on completion of five years of teaching experience from 17.12.2002, the said G. Kumar may be given as Middle School Headmaster’s salary and other benefits. 4. When the matter was posted for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter in issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court made in W.A.No.442 of 2007, dated 20.3.2007 and order in W.P.No.8782 of 2006, dated 24.11.2008. 4. When the matter was posted for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter in issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court made in W.A.No.442 of 2007, dated 20.3.2007 and order in W.P.No.8782 of 2006, dated 24.11.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to hand over a judgment copy to the learned Government Advocate, who took notice for the respondents. 5. On going through the said judgment, the learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the matter in issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment made in W.A.No.442 of 2007, dated 20.3.2007 and W.P.No.8782 of 2006, dated 24.11.2008. IN paragraphs 3 to 5 of the order dated 24.11.2008, it is held thus:- “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.21006 of 2006 and by order dated 06.11.2006, the appointment of one T. Subbulakshmi who is also a graduate like the petitioner was approved and for not having five years experience, one N.S. Meenakshi who was appointed from 25.09.1998 was granted approval on condition that she will get the salary as Headmaster only on completion of five years of her experience. The said order was challenged in W.A.442 of 2007 and the Division Bench by order dated 28.03.2007 in paragraph 3 and 4 of the said judgment held as follows: “Four reasons are given by the Department for not granting approval to the appointment of the first respondent as Headmistress of the second respondent school. The first reason is that without five years’ experience the appointment of Primary School Headmistress was made. This ground was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge in view of the G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 05.07.2001 relaxing the requirement of five years’ experience. As far as the second ground, viz., without obtaining the prior permission from the District Elementary Education Officer, the appointment was made is concerned, it is stated that though the school management has sought prior approval for appointing the Headmistress to the school, there was no response from the authorities concerned and since the school could not be run without a Headmistress, the school management was constrained to call for application for appointment through employment exchange and through publication in newspaper and appointed the first respondent as Headmistress on 25-9-1998. When the Department has failed to consider the school management’s application dated 3-3-1998 for grant of prior approval for appointment of Headmistress and the subsequent requests, the second reason given for not granting the approval, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, is unsustainable. The third reason is the Headmistress possesses higher qualifications for the post of Primary School Headmistress without required qualification. This ground is also without any merit. In a similar situation, the appointment of one T. Subbulakshmi, who is also a graduate like the first respondent herein, was approved vide G.O. (2D) No.4 dated 10.2.2004. The last ground is that the appointment was not made from 11-7-1995 to 19-5-1998 as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.155 School Education Department (second defendant) dated 03.10.2002 but the appointment was made on 25-9-1998. On a plain reading of the said Government Order, it is seen that it is applicable only to the appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher and not to the appointment of Headmistress. 4. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that our order should not be treated as precedent in any other case. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the First Bench of this Court, the Department has approved the appointment of N.S. Meenakshi as Headmistress on condition that till she completes five years experience, she will be paid Secondary Grade scale of pay and after completion of five years experience, she will be paid the Headmistress scale of pay. 5. In the light of the above orders, the impugned order dated 30.07.2004 passed by the second respondent is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim for approval without reference to G.O.Ms.No.559, Education, dated 11.07.1995 and pass orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner satisfies the requirement of five years of teaching experience, she is entitled to get approval of her appointment from the date of his appointment and otherwise, she is entitled to get approval as Headmistress with the scale of pay of Secondary Grade Teacher for five years and on completion of five years, she is eligible to get the scale of pay of Headmaster and from 27.11.2003 the petitioner is entitled to get B.T. Grade Head Mistress salary as the post was upgraded from the said date.” 6. IN the said judgment, it is ordered that if a person is appointed as Middle School Headmaster without experience and if he continued in the post for more than five years, the said person’s appointment can be given approval as B.T. Assistant and on completion of five years experience, the said person can be given Middle School Headmaster’s scale of pay. 7. Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the said G. Kumar from 17.12.2002 as B.T. Assistant for five years and on completion of five years as B.T. Assistant, i.e. from 17.12.2007, his appointment shall be approved in the post of Middle School Headmaster. The second respondent is directed to pass necessary orders in the light the above direction, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.