JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 19.3.2002 and the consequential proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 30.11.2004 insofar as approving the petitioner's appointment only with effect from 19.3.2002 and for further direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to approve his appointment as P.G. Assistant (English) with effect from 19.1.1999 with all attendant benefits viz. salary, allowances, etc. ( 2. ) THE case of the petitioner is that he completed M.A., M.Ed, and initially he was appointed as P.G. Assistant (English) at the 4th respondent School on 1.6.1987. THE 4th respondent school is recognised and aided by the State Government. As his appointment was not approved, again he was issued with a fresh appointment order in the vacancy caused due to the voluntary retirement of one Mr. Joshua on 18.1.1999, who had worked as P.G. Assistant (Tamil). After appointing the petitioner in the said vacancy the 4th respondent School sent a proposal on the very same day requesting the Joint Director of School Education to permit the conversion of the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) into P.G. Assistant (English). Followed by the said request, the 4th respondent had also submitted a proposal to the 2nd respondent for approval of appointment of the petitioner as P.G. Assistant (English). ( 3. ) IT is stated by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had also directed the 4th respondent School to give an undertaking that they will not claim the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) in future. Accordingly, the 4th respondent gave such an undertaking on 22.7.1999. However, the permission for conversion of post was not granted and also the appointment of the petitioner was not approved. Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 19857 of 2000 wherein by an order dated 27.11.2000 the 1st respondent was directed to consider the representation and pass orders. Thereafter, on 19.3.2002, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order permitting the conversion of the said post with effect from the date of the order and not from the date of appointment of the petitioner. Consequent to the said order, the petitioner's appointment was also approved as P.G. Assistant (English) with effect from 19.3.2002 by a proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.11.2004 and thereafter, the petitioner is being paid the salary with effect from 19.3.2002. ( 4. Consequent to the said order, the petitioner's appointment was also approved as P.G. Assistant (English) with effect from 19.3.2002 by a proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.11.2004 and thereafter, the petitioner is being paid the salary with effect from 19.3.2002. ( 4. ) IT is stated by the petitioner that when his appointment was made on 19.1.1999, the conversion of the said post was granted by the 1st respondent should be effective only from the date of the appointment of the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner ought to have paid salary from 19.1.1999 onwards instead of 19.3.2002. Therefore, he has challenged the impugned orders with a prayer as stated supra. ( 5. ) NOTICE of motion was ordered by this Court on 11.12.2006. The respondents 1 to 3 are represented through the learned Special Government Pleader and they have filed a counter affidavit. The 4th respondent though served, has not chosen to appear in person or through counsel and hence, the name of the 4th respondent is printed in the cause list. ( 6. ) THE respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit contended that, at the time of appointing the petitioner on 19.1.1999, the 4th respondent school was not sanctioned with P.G. Assistant (English) and what was sanctioned was P.G. Assistant (Tamil) and as the petitioner was not possessing the requisit qualification to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) he was not entitled to get salary with effect from the date of his appointment and therefore, the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent was perfectly in order. It is further stated that the 1st respondent had granted the conversion by his proceedings dated 19.3.2002 only to convert the post from P.G. Assistant (Tamil) to P.G. Assistant (English) and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get all benefits including the salary with effect from the date of the said order of the 1st respondent granting permission to convert the said post and not from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. ( 7. ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. ( 8. ) THE petitioner was originally appointed in the 4th respondent school as P.G. Assistant (English) on 1.6.1987 and the same was not approved in view of the fact that the post was not sanctioned one. ( 7. ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. ( 8. ) THE petitioner was originally appointed in the 4th respondent school as P.G. Assistant (English) on 1.6.1987 and the same was not approved in view of the fact that the post was not sanctioned one. Subsequently, the petitioner was accommodated by making a fresh appointment in a regular vacancy of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) caused due to the voluntary retirement of one Mr. Joshua on 18.1.1999. It seems that the 4th respondent School immediately after appointing the petitioner as P.G. Assistant (English) on 19.1.1999, submitted a request to the Joint Director of School Education to permit the conversion of the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) into P.G. Assistant (English) and also gave an undertaking at the instance of the 2nd respondent, that they will not claim the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) in future. However, the 1st respondent passed the order granting permission to convert the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) to P.G. Assistant (English) only on 19.3.2002 by giving affect to the conversion of the said post from the date of such order. In the said order dated 19.3.2002, the 1st respondent has also referred to the 4th respondent's representation dated 19.1.1999 whereby conversion of the post was sought for based on the vacancy caused due to the voluntary retirement given by one Mr. Joshua who worked as P.G. Assistant (Tamil), which was a regular and sanctioned post. Though the 1st respondent has referred to the said request in the impugned order dated 19.3.2002 and also referred to the undertaking given by the 4th respondent School that they will not claim the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) in future, the 1st respondent had not given any specific reason as to why the said order was given effect to from 19.3.2002 only and not from the date of appointment of the petitioner in the 4th respondent School on 19.1.1999. ( 9. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, a learned Judge of this Court in a decision in M. Sivakumar v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort. St. ( 9. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, a learned Judge of this Court in a decision in M. Sivakumar v. THE Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai and Others 2005 Writ L.R. 515 : has directed the approval of the appointment of the said teacher from the date of the appointment. ( 10. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court in yet another unreported decision of this Court in W.P. No. 19902 of 2008 dated 30.04.2009 (THE Manager, RC Schools, Salem Diocess Society, Salem v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai) wherein also the similar issue was considered by the Learned single Judge and the authorities therein were directed to issue necessary orders granting approval from the date of appointment of the petitioner therein. ( 11. ) IT appears that, as against the said order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 19902 of 2008, a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2058 of 2010 was filed and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 21.3.201l. ( 12. ) A perusal of the judgments, which are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner support his case for seeking approval of the post of P.G. Assistant (English) from the date of appointment of the petitioner namely an 19.1.1999 and get the salary and other attendant benefits instead of 19.3.2002 being the date of the order passed by the 1st respondent permitting the conversion. Once the 1st respondent granted permission to convert the post from P.G. Assistant (Tamil) into P.G. Assistant (English) at the 4th respondent, school, such permission should take effect from the date of appointment of the petitioner, especially when the request for conversion of the post was made by the school based on the appointment of the petitioner on 19.1.1999. ( 13. ) IT is also submitted that the 4th respondent School was sanctioned with two posts of P.G. Assistant (Tamil). Out of which, one P.G. Assistant (Tamil) is already working. ( 13. ) IT is also submitted that the 4th respondent School was sanctioned with two posts of P.G. Assistant (Tamil). Out of which, one P.G. Assistant (Tamil) is already working. Therefore, there is no monitory loss to the department also apart from the fact that the 4th respondent school had also given an undertaking to the 1st respondent that they will not claim the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) in future. ( 14. ) UNDER these circumstances, the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to approve the petitioner's appointment as P.G. Assistant (English) with effect, from 19.1.1999 and pay the arrears of salary and other attendant benefits from 19.1.1999 to 19.3.2002 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps .are closed.