Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the first respondent, dated 19.03.2008 and consequently seeking for approval of the petitioner's appointment as 'Headmaster' from 01.06.1996 and to pay the arrears, increments and other monetary and attendants benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as 'Secondary Grade Teacher' in the second respondent School on 08.10.1973. He was promoted as 'Headmaster' on 01.06.1996. Another teacher, by name Arjunan challenged the appointment of the petitioner as 'Headmaster' before the first respondent. Consequently, approval sought for the petitioner's appointment from 01.06.1996 was rejected and the said Arjunan was directed to be appointed as Headmaster of the School, through an order, dated 07.03.1997, passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar. Aggrieved against the said order, the second respondent School filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14626 of 1997 and the same was dismissed on 04.12.1998. Further, writ appeal was preferred in W.A.No.412 of 1999 by the second respondent School. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, by its order, dated 26.06.2000 set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner as 'Headmaster' and directed the School to make a fresh selection between the petitioner and the said Arjunan, by specifically observing that the petitioner's father should not participate in the proceedings of the Selection Committee. Thereafter, the School Committee recommended the petitioner's appointment from the date of his initial appointment, namely 01.06.1996. The said proposal seeking for approval of appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.1996 was sent by the second respondent School. In the meantime, the said Arjunan also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3667 of 2005 seeking for a direction to take over the management of the School by the Government. The said writ petition was dismissed on 21.11.2005. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed, whereby the petitioner's appointment as 'Headmaster' was approved only with effect from 01.02.2006. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this court by the petitioner seeking for his approval from 01.06.1996. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent, in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as 'Secondary Grade Teacher' on 08.10.1973. The second respondent school appointed the petitioner on 01.06.1996 and sent the proposal for approval of such appointment. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent, in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as 'Secondary Grade Teacher' on 08.10.1973. The second respondent school appointed the petitioner on 01.06.1996 and sent the proposal for approval of such appointment. One Arjunan was also working in the same School and he was senior to the petitioner was not considered while making the appointment. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner from 01.06.1996 was rejected and consequently, the said Arjunan was directed to be appointed as Headmaster. The said order was challenged by the second respondent School in W.P.No.14626 of 1997 and the same was dismissed on 04.12.1998. Further appeal filed in W.A.No.412 of 1999 came to be disposed of on 26.06.2000, by directing the School to make a fresh selection among the petitioner and the said Arjunan and further by directing that the father of the petitioner shall not take part in the Selection Committee. 4. It is further stated by the first respondent that the School Committee convened on 07.08.2000 approved the appointment of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment, namely 01.06.1996 and consequently sent a proposal only on 10.01.2006 seeking for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. The said proposal sent by the second respondent does not contain the date on which the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster, pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Considering the above said facts, the appointment of the petitioner as 'Headmaster' was approved only from 01.02.2006. 5. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 6. In this case, originally the petitioner was appointed as 'Headmaster' on 01.06.1996 and such appointment was not approved by the first respondent. Therefore, the School filed a writ petition and the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge. Further writ appeal preferred in W.A No.412 of 1999 was disposed of on 26.06.2000, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was set aside and the School Committee was directed to make a fresh selection as between the petitioner and the Arjunan. Consequently, the School Committee, which was convened on 07.08.2000 once again approved the appointment of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment, namely 01.06.1996. Taking advantage of such proceedings, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for approval of his appointment from 01.06.1996. 7. Consequently, the School Committee, which was convened on 07.08.2000 once again approved the appointment of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment, namely 01.06.1996. Taking advantage of such proceedings, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for approval of his appointment from 01.06.1996. 7. I am unable to accept the claim of the petitioner seeking for approval from 01.06.1996 for the simple reason that the said appointment made by the second respondent, appointing the petitioner from 01.06.1996 was set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench, by its order, dated 26.06.2000. When such appointment was set aside and the second respondent school was directed to make fresh selection, I fail to understand as to how the School Committee can approve the appointment of the petitioner again from 01.06.1996 through its proceedings, dated 07.08.2000. In any event, it has to be taken that the petitioner was appointed afresh only from 07.08.2000 and consequently, the second respondent School ought to have sought for approval of such appointment only from 07.08.2000. Instead of doing so, they sent a proposal on 10.01.2006 seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment from 01.06.1996. Therefore, the first respondent, in the absence of any specific date mentioned in the said proposal indicating the date of fresh appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster, approved the appointment only with effect from 01.02.2006. It is for the second respondent school to send a fresh proposal seeking for approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from 07.08.2000 by enclosing all the necessary documentary proof to show that the petitioner was appointed on 07.08.2000. Even though, the School Committee has approved the appointment once again from 01.06.1996, such approval has to be construed as a fresh appointment from the date of such proceedings, dated 07.08.2000. Therefore, it is for the first respondent to consider the said proposal to be sent by the second respondent and pass orders to approve the appointment of the petitioner from 07.08.2000 onwards. 8. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to make a fresh proposal to the first respondent seeking for approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from the date of his fresh appointment, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to make a fresh proposal to the first respondent seeking for approval of appointment of the petitioner with effect from the date of his fresh appointment, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such proposal, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, approving the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his fresh appointment and pay the salary and other benefits within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.