Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Higher Education Department and two other officers against the order dated 11.6.2012 passed in W.P. No. 11512 of 2012 wherein and whereunder the writ petition filed by the first respondent for approval of his appointment was allowed directing the Director of Collegiate Education to approve the appointment of the first respondent in the second respondent College. 2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 as well as learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 school. 3. The first respondent herein was appointed as Lecturer in the second respondent College in a sanctioned post as against the vacancy caused due to the retirement of one D.Christian Babu on 31.5.2008. The case of the first respondent before the learned Judge was that since his representations seeking for approval of his appointment was not considered, he filed W.P. No. 23539 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 18.01.2010 directed the authorities to verify the strength particulars and pass orders. The further grievance of the first respondent was that despite the order of this Court dated 18.01.2010, his representation was not considered and when the same was verified under the RTI Act, it was replied that Writ Appeal has been filed as against the said order of this Court. Under the said circumstances, the first respondent filed the Writ Petition. 4. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the materials placed on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, directed the Director of Collegiate Education to approve the appointment of the first respondent as Lecturer in the Department of Botany from 16.6.2008 and to pay him the salary and other benefits from 16.6.2008 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order copy. Aggrieved by the same, the Government of Tamil Nadu has come up with the present appeal. 5. When the matter came up for consideration today, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the order of the learned single Judge was complied with by the appellants and the appointment of the first respondent was approved by order dated 19.02.2013. 6. 5. When the matter came up for consideration today, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the order of the learned single Judge was complied with by the appellants and the appointment of the first respondent was approved by order dated 19.02.2013. 6. It is seen from the records that the second respondent Management sent proposals to the second appellant Director of Collegiate Education for approval of the appointment of the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent also made a representation on 08.10.2009 and since no action was taken, he filed W.P. No. 23539 of 2009 before this Court praying for a direction to approve his appointment as Lecturer in Botany with all monetary benefits and this Court, by order dated 18.01.2010, directed the authorities to verify the strength particulars and pass orders. Thereafter, when the first respondent submitted representation under the provisions of the RTI Act, it was replied that Writ Appeal has been filed as against the order of this Court. It is also to be noted that the said Writ Appeal ended in dismissal. It is only thereafter, the second respondent filed W.P. No. 11512 of 2012 for the very same relief and finally, the learned single Judge passed the above said order in question, holding that the issue involved in this Writ Appeal is already covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 92 and 93 of 2008, dated 06.01.2010, which was followed subsequently in W.A. No. 2345 of 2011 dated 05.3.2012. Not satisfied with the above, the Government has preferred this Appeal. 7. It is relevant to point out that this Court, while delivering the judgment in W.A. No. 2345 of 2011, disposed on 05.3.2012, (wherein myself was a Member), in respect of one Dr. C. Selvaraj of the very same Management, also observed that once appointment of a person in a sanctioned post is made in accordance with law, no prior permission from the Directorate of Collegiate Education is required and that he is eligible to get salary and accordingly, directed the authorities to approve his appointment. In such view of the matter, we see no reason to take a different view from that of the learned single Judge. 8. In such view of the matter, we see no reason to take a different view from that of the learned single Judge. 8. It is also pertinent to point out at this stage that when the issue is already settled by the orders of this Court, still the appellants made the first respondent to approach the Court twice and thereafter by filing Contempt Petition to implement the orders of this Court. 9. Since the appellants have wasted the valuable time of this Court and with a view to arrest such type of attitude of the authorities, viz., not implementing the orders of the Court even though the issue is settled, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the appellants should be mulcted with costs. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellants are hereby directed to pay cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from today. The appellants are further directed to comply with the order of the learned single Judge within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.