Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned part of order of the second respondent passed vide Na.Ka.No.2866/D1(1)/03 dt.1.3.2005 and the order of the third respondent Na.Ka.No.3979/A3/2002 dt.26.5.2005 regarding non-approval of appointment of the petitioner from 1.9.1999 to 19.2.2004 and consequently direct the respondents to approve the petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant from 1.9.1999 and to pay the salary of Junior Assistant Scale for the service rendered from 1.9.1999 to 19.2.2004. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Noon Meal Organiser in Sri Devi Karumariamman Devasthanam Jeevarathinammal Higher Secondary School, Thiruverkadu on 15.9.1984. After rendering 15 years of service, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant by direct recruitment against vacancy arisen due to retirement of Mr. Meenakshi Sundaram. The proposal of the Management of the School for approving the appointment of petitioner was not accepted. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.No.17872 of 2003 seeking approval of selection and appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and approved the appointment of the petitioner. It was in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the respondent passed the order approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 20.2.2004. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order being totally arbitrary, on the ground that once appointment of the petitioner was approved, there is no justification with the respondent to approved it with effect from 20.2.2004 instead of original date of appointment. 4. Learned Government Advocate opposed the writ petition, on the plea that the appointment of the petitioner was not approved, as the management had failed to follow the procedure for appointment then in force. Therefore, his appointment could only be approved from the date, when the Hon'ble High Court issued direction, for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. 5. The defence raised by the learned Govt. Advocate cannot be accepted. The Courts while taking a decision, only interpret the rights of the parties in existence. Therefore, the order passed by this Court approving the appointment of the petitioner was to be taken as from the date of initial appointment and not from the date, this Court issued direction to approve the appointment. 6. Advocate cannot be accepted. The Courts while taking a decision, only interpret the rights of the parties in existence. Therefore, the order passed by this Court approving the appointment of the petitioner was to be taken as from the date of initial appointment and not from the date, this Court issued direction to approve the appointment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore was right in contending that the petitioner was entitled to approval from the date of initial appointment i.e. 1.1.1999. 7. In view of the decision of this Court upholding the decision of respondent in appointing the petitioner, the impugned order being arbitrary and outcome of misinterpretation of the order of this Court not sustainable in law. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, a direction is issued to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner, as Junior Assistant from the date of his initial appointment, with all consequential benefits. M.P.No.2 of 2009 is closed. No cost.