Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent passed in Pa.Mu.4282/A4/2010 dated 06.08.2010 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to approve the appointment of Thiru. R. Seeyalanathan as B.T. English Teacher, in the petitioner school w.e.f. 21.04.2011 based on the proposal of the petitioner dated 15.09.2011. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner school was established and granted recognition and aid by the Government. The school is having standards 1 to 8 with 632 students. The Department sanctioned the following teaching posts: (i) One B.T. Headmaster; (ii) 17 Secondary Grade Teacher; (iii) 2 Vocational Teachers. In the Secondary Grade Teacher Posts, a vacancy arose on 31.05.2007 and the School Management applied for permission to fill up the post and permission was granted to fill up the post as B.T. Assistant (Mathematics). 3. According to the petitioner, the school is in need of B. T. Assistant (English) and the next vacancy will be filled up by B.T. Assistant (Mathematics). The Management has considered the education need and appointed one R. Seeyalanathan as B.T. Assistant (English) w.e.f. 21.04.2011 and submitted the proposal for approval and the said proposal was not considered on the ground that permission was granted to fill up the post of B.T. Assistant (Mathematics). 4. Whether the Department can direct the Management to fill up the post by following Subject Roster or not was considered by this Court in the decision reported in The Corporate Manager, CSI Corporate Schools v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2006 (5) CTC 504 and in the said Judgment, it is held that the Subject Roster prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.100 is not applicable to aided schools and the proceedings of the Directorate of School Education fixing Subject Roster is not applicable to Aided Schools. Following the said Judgment, the writ petition in W.P.No.16018 of 2007 was allowed on 27.04.2007. Against the said Judgment dated 27.04.2007, the Department filed writ appeal in W.A.No.1198 of 2007 and the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 20.09.2007 and upheld the order of the learned single Judge quashing the order relying on the Subject Roster and allowed the writ petition with further direction to approve the appointment within four weeks. Against the said Judgment dated 27.04.2007, the Department filed writ appeal in W.A.No.1198 of 2007 and the writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 20.09.2007 and upheld the order of the learned single Judge quashing the order relying on the Subject Roster and allowed the writ petition with further direction to approve the appointment within four weeks. The said judgment was followed in W.P.No.21885 of 2008 and the similar writ petition was allowed by order dated 17.09.2008 holding that the subject roster cannot be fixed in aided school by the Department. 5. Here, in this case, the Department has upgraded the Secondary Grade Teacher post to B.T. Assistant Post. However, a direction was issued to appoint B.T. Assistant in Mathematics subject. The requirement of the school is B.T. Assistant (English). It is also to be borne in mind that the Management is undertaking to appoint B.T. Assistant (Mathematics) in the future vacancy. The said submission made by the Management is recorded. 6. Following the judgments referred above, the impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued to the second respondent to approve the appointment of R. Seeyalanathan as B.T. Assistant (English) from the date of appointment 21.04.2011 and necessary order is directed to be passed by the second respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.