Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the order dated 23.01.2012 rejecting the request of the management to approve the appointment of Headmaster of the petitioner school with effect from 22.09.1997. 2. The case or the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is an Aided Primary School governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the orders of the Government. A school and the fourth respondent made representation to the third respondent to fill up the said post, which was considered by the third respondent and permission was granted to fill up the post by proceedings dated 11.03.1997. Notification was issued to the employment exchange about the vacancy and requested for list of qualified candidates. Since, no qualified candidates were available, the school issued paper publication inviting candidates. The petitioner was appointed on 22.09.1997 as Secondary Grade Headmistress. The fourth respondent sent proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner to the third respondent, which was rejected by the third respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8133 of 2003 and the same was disposed of on the basis of the Division Bench judgment made in W.A.No.991 to 998 of 1998 dated 29.06.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for one month child psychology training by the third respondent by proceeding dated 23.05.2005 and the appointment of the petitioner was approved by proceedings of the third respondent dated 20.07.2005. The Second Respondent by proceedings dated 24.03.1992 directed to approve the appointment of those teachers who are not having five years experience on the basis of Government letter dated 01.03.1988. Again, the second respondent issued another proceeding dated 01.07.1992 directing to approve appointment of one A.R. Ramachandran, Graduate Teacher appointed as Primary School Headmaster, who was not having five years teaching experience. Again in G.O. (2D).No.4 dated 10.02.2004, the department approved similar appointment of one T. Subbulakshmi as Primary School Headmistress. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner is that one N.S.Meenakshi, who is also a Graduate Teacher, was appointed as Primary School Headmistress on 25.09.1998, filed writ petition in W.P.No.21006 of 2006 against the rejection of approval of her appointment. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner is that one N.S.Meenakshi, who is also a Graduate Teacher, was appointed as Primary School Headmistress on 25.09.1998, filed writ petition in W.P.No.21006 of 2006 against the rejection of approval of her appointment. By order dated 06.11.2006, this Court held that G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 27.10.2005 is applicable to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and not to Primary School Headmaster and quashed the order of the Director of Elementary Education and a direction was issued to approve her appointment as Primary School Headmistress. Aggrieved by the same, the Department filed W.A.No.442 of 2007, which was dismissed on 20.03.2007. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 21.09.2007 approving similar appointments. Hence, the petitioner made representation dated 04.12.2008 to the respondents 1 and 2 requesting to approve her appointment in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.21006 of 2006 dated confirmed in Writ Appeal on 06.11.2006. Even thereafter, the respondents failed to consider the representation or the petitioner and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20963 of 2009. By order dated 14.10.2009, this Court directed to second respondent to consider the representation dated 04.12.2008 in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. As the second respondent failed to pass orders, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.1929 of 2011 and as a result, the second respondent rejected the claim for approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Primary School Headmistress. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter in issue is covered by the Division Bench orders in W.A.No.442 of 2007 dated 20.03.2007 and W.A.No.1408 of 2010 dated 08.12.2011. The learned Additional Government Pleader also after going through the Division Bench orders submitted that similar order may be passed. In the Division Bench order dated 08.12.201, the Division Bench held thus: “4. Two questions arise for our consideration viz., (i) Whether G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department (D2), dated 3.10.2002 would be applicable to the appointment of a B.Ed graduate to the post of Headmistress in a primary school and (ii) If so whether the training for a period of five years is a pre-requisite condition for eligibility for such appointment? 5. Two questions arise for our consideration viz., (i) Whether G.O.Ms.No.155, School Education Department (D2), dated 3.10.2002 would be applicable to the appointment of a B.Ed graduate to the post of Headmistress in a primary school and (ii) If so whether the training for a period of five years is a pre-requisite condition for eligibility for such appointment? 5. As far as the first contention is concerned, a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.442 of 2007 has taken the view that in case a B.Ed graduate is appointed as Headmistress in a Primary School, the said G.O. is not applicable and there cannot be any impediment for such appointment. The application of the G.O. is in relation to an appointment of B.Ed graduate to the post of Secondary grade teacher. As the said G.O. has been upheld by the Supreme Court finally, we are not inclined to take a different view that the one taken by the Division Bench, as admittedly the Government has also not questioned the said order of the Division Bench by any further appeal. 6. As far as the second ground is concerned, for appointment to the post of a Headmistress the period of five years training is necessary. In the case on hand, the appointee viz., Manjula Devi has given consent that she will not receive salary attached to the post of Headmistress for a period of five years till she completes the training, which is required for such appointment. The Government has also granted exemption for such eligibility norms of five years’ experience at the time of appointment with a condition that such appointee should undergo training in a period or five years. The learned single Judge having accepted the case of the respondent Management that the appointee will not claim salary attacked to the post of Headmistress, in our opinion, as the fact that the Government has granted exemption for such appointment is not disputed, we are not inclined to interfere with the said finding of the learned single Judge. As on both grounds, we are not inclined to entertain any grievance made in the writ appeal, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.” 5. In view of the above settled position, the impugned order dated 23.01.2012 is set aside. As on both grounds, we are not inclined to entertain any grievance made in the writ appeal, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.” 5. In view of the above settled position, the impugned order dated 23.01.2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Headmistress with effect from 22.09.1997 with all consequential benefits, in the light of the order in W.P.No.21006 of 2006 dated 06.11.2006 confirmed by the order in writ appeal No.442 of 2007 dated 20.03.2007 and in writ Appeal No.1408 of 2010 dated 08.12.2011. Necessary order to that effect is to be passed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.