Judgment 1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent, dated 11.07.2008, whereby the proposal sent for approval of the appointment of Mechanic/Junior Mechanic, by name X. Anto Valan was returned by stating that the same can be resubmitted after the lifting of the ban imposed by the Director of Collegiate Education. Consequently, the petitioner also seeks for a direction to direct the third respondent to approve the appointment of the said person from the date of his appointment, namely 13.08.2007. 2. The short facts for consideration of this court in this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner is a recognised minority educational institution. It is aided by the Government of Tamil Nadu. There are 85 teaching staff and 50 non teaching staff in the petitioner's college. The second respondent through his proceedings, dated 14.05.2007 permitted the petitioner to fill up three non teaching posts namely, Assistant, Stenotypist and Mechanic. Accordingly, the petitioner appointed one X. Anto Valan as Mechanic, by an order, dated 30.08.2007. Likewise, another person by name, A. Kirickose Rency was appointed as a Steno-Typist, by an order, dated 16.08.2007. After making such appointments, proposals were sent to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education for approval of such appointments, through proceedings, dated 20.08.2007. In so far as the appointment of Steno-typist is concerned, approval has been granted by the third respondent on 21.11.2007 approving the appointment of such person from 16.08.2007 onwards. However, in the case of mechanic, the proposal was returned by way of passing the impugned order with a direction to resubmit the same after lifting of the ban imposed by the Director of Collegiate Education. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this court, challenging the said action of the third respondent. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the College was permitted to fill up three non teaching staff through the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 14.05.2007 and a Mechanic by name X. Anto Valan and a Steno-typist, by name Mrs. A. Kirickose Rency, were appointed on 13.08.2007 and 16.08.2007 respectively. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the College was permitted to fill up three non teaching staff through the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 14.05.2007 and a Mechanic by name X. Anto Valan and a Steno-typist, by name Mrs. A. Kirickose Rency, were appointed on 13.08.2007 and 16.08.2007 respectively. It is further stated that the Director of Collegiate Education, through proceedings, dated 10.05.2007 addressed all the Joint Directors not to approve the appointment of non teaching staff working in the aided colleges, who were appointed against the posts, which are lying vacant before 10.05.2007 until further orders. Therefore, the appointment of the Mechanic could not be approved and to that effect, the petitioner was informed through the impugned communication. 4. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner had appointed a person as 'Mechanic' and there is no post as 'Mechanic' sanctioned to the College by the Department and on the other hand, the college is eligible for the post of Junior Mechanic only. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 6. Mr. Issac Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very same second respondent granted permission on 14.05.2007 permitting the petitioner's college to fill up three non teaching staff, out of which one Mechanic and Steno-Typist posts were filled up by the petitioner's college on 13.08.2007 and 16.08.2007 respectively. Having granted permission to fill up such posts, the authorities are not entitled to deny the approval by citing the ban on appointment issued by the Director of Collegiate Education. He further submitted that when they have chosen to approve the appointment of Steno-Typist, in pursuant to the permission granted by the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 04.05.2007, there cannot be any impediment or justifiable reason for denying the approval of the appointment of other person namely X. Anto Valan, Mechanic, who was appointed on 13.08.2007. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even the mistake committed in describing the post as 'Mechanic', instead of 'Junior Mechanic' was also rectified by the petitioner by resubmitting the proposal to the third respondent on 05.12.2007 itself. 8. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even the mistake committed in describing the post as 'Mechanic', instead of 'Junior Mechanic' was also rectified by the petitioner by resubmitting the proposal to the third respondent on 05.12.2007 itself. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that when there is a ban on appointment imposed by the second respondent through his proceedings, dated 10.05.2007, the petitioner cannot appoint the non teaching staff, even though the permission was granted by the very same second respondent through his communication, dated 14.05.2007. Therefore, learned Government Advocate submitted that the proposal was only returned and not rejected so as to enable the petitioner college to resubmit the proposal after lifting of the ban. 9. The petitioner college is a minority institution. Out of 50 sanctioned non teaching posts, some vacancies arose and through proceedings, dated 14.05.2007, the second respondent permitted the college to fill up three non teaching posts namely Assistant, Steno-Typist and Mechanic. In pursuant to the said proceedings of the second respondent, the petitioner college appointed the Mechanic and Steno-Typist on 13.08.2007 and 16.08.2007 respectively. When proposals were sent for approval of their appointments, the third respondent approved the appointment of the Steno-Typist, through his proceedings, dated 21.11.2007, thereby approving the appointment with effect from 16.08.2007, and however returned the proposal in respect of the Mechanic is concerned by citing the reason of ban order imposed by the second respondent. I fail to understand as to how the respondents can act differently against the appointments made by the college in respect of two non teaching staff. Even assuming that the second respondent had imposed some ban on 10.05.2007, the very issuance of the permission granted by the very same second respondent, dated 14.05.2007 would only show that the petitioner is entitled to appoint 3 non teaching staff, without reference to the ban issued by the very same second respondent. Even assuming that the second respondent had imposed some ban on 10.05.2007, the very issuance of the permission granted by the very same second respondent, dated 14.05.2007 would only show that the petitioner is entitled to appoint 3 non teaching staff, without reference to the ban issued by the very same second respondent. At any event, when the posts are sanctioned and the appointment was also made only in pursuant to the permission granted by the second respondent, denial of approval on the ground that there was a ban, cannot be accepted by this court, especially on the very reason that such ban was not cited as a reason in the case of appointment of Steno-Typist and on the other hand, they were chosen to approve the same from the date of appointment. In my considered view, it only shows the discriminatory attitude of the respondents in not granting the approval to a similarly situated person. 10. Considering all theses facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the Junior Mechanic, by name X. Anto Valan from the date of his initial appointment, namely 13.08.2007 and pay all the salary and other monetary benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.