Order:- 1. In W.P. (MD) No.13244 of 2009, the petitioner challenged the staff fixation order passed by the third respondent, in his proceedings, dated 10.11.2009 for the academic year 2009-2010. 2. In W.P. (MD) No.10804 of 2010, the petitioner challenged the order of the fourth respondent and consequently seeking for a direction to approve the appointment of two teachers and consequently, to direct the third respondent to redeploy them to the other needy schools within the petitioner's management. 3. The short facts for consideration, in these two writ petitions, are as follows:- The petitioner's school is a Christian Minority Educational Institution. The third respondent fixed the staff strength of the petitioner's school for the academic year 20082009, whereby two B.T. Assistants posts were declared surplus, out of the 14 B.T. Assistants working in the petitioner's school. The said staff fixation was made by the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 12.09.2008. Both the surplus B.T. Assistant teachers were redeployed to the other needy schools by the third respondent himself, through his proceedings, dated 30.10.2008 and 03.12.2008 respectively. Therefore, as on 03.12.2008, there was no surplus posts of B.T. Assistants in the petitioner's school. Thereafter, on 17.02.2009 one B.T Assistant died and on 02.06.2009 and two more B.T Assistants were transferred from the petitioner's school to other schools of the same management. Thus, as on 02.06.2009, there were three vacancies of B.T. Assistants in the petitioner's school. In all the three said vacancies, the petitioner's school appointed qualified teachers as B.T. Assistants, by proceedings, dated 02.06.2009. After appointing those persons on 02.06.2009, proposals were sent for approval of their appointments, which were not considered on the reason that the third respondent through proceedings, dated 10.11.2009, while fixing the staff strength for the petitioner's school for the academic year 2009-2010, declared three B.T. Assistant posts as surplus and permitted to retain one B.T. Assistant and surrendered other two B.T Assistants to the Department. Therefore, aggrieved against the said staff fixation order as well as not approving the appointment of those three B.T. Assistants, the petitioner is before this court by filing the above two writ petitions. 4. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(MD)No.13244 of 2009. It is stated that the third respondent fixed the staff strength of the petitioner's school on 10.11.2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1987, thereby finding two B.T.(History) and one Secondary Grade teacher posts as surplus. 4. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(MD)No.13244 of 2009. It is stated that the third respondent fixed the staff strength of the petitioner's school on 10.11.2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1987, thereby finding two B.T.(History) and one Secondary Grade teacher posts as surplus. The petitioner's school appointed two teachers for the surplus vacancies and therefore, those appointments cannot be approved. 5. It is further stated that the staff fixation was made only on the basis of the students strength as on 01.08.2009. The petitioner has not taken any steps to transfer the surplus posts to the other needy schools and on the other hand, they filled up the vacancy surplus posts, knowingly that they would become surplus during the year 20092010. 6. Likewise, in the counter affidavit filed in W.P. (MD) No.14080 of 2010, the fourth respondent contended that he has not refused to approve the appointment of two teachers appointed in the petitioner's school. The school has to furnish additional particulars for the approval of the said posts. It is further stated that the appointments were made in the posts, which was found surplus as per the staff fixation done for the academic year 2009-2010. 7. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 8. From the facts placed before this court, it is seen that the staff fixation for the academic year 2008-2009 was done by the Chief Educational Officer on 12.09.2008. A perusal of the said proceedings show that out of 14 B.T. Assistant posts, two were found surplus and those posts with the teachers were deployed to other needy school by the third respondent, through his proceedings, dated 30.10.2008 and 03.12.2008 respectively. Therefore, as on 03.12.2008, the petitioner's school was having only 12 B.T. Assistant posts, as per the staff fixation done by the third respondent for the academic year 2008-2009 and consequently, there was no surplus post of B.T. Assistants in the petitioner's school as on 03.12.2008. Out of the said 12 B.T. Assistants, one teacher, by name Alfred died on 17.02.2009, two other teachers, by name Augustine and Geetha Chellam were transferred to other school within the same management on 02.06.2009. Thus, as on 02.06.2009, there were 3 vacancies, out of the total 12 B.T. Assistant posts. In those three vacancies, the petitioner's school appointed three B.T. Assistants on 02.06.2009 and consequently, sought for approval of their appointments. Thus, as on 02.06.2009, there were 3 vacancies, out of the total 12 B.T. Assistant posts. In those three vacancies, the petitioner's school appointed three B.T. Assistants on 02.06.2009 and consequently, sought for approval of their appointments. The third respondent fixed the staff strength for the academic year 2009-2012, by his proceedings, dated 10.11.2009.In the said proceedings, the third respondent declared three B.T. Assistant posts as surplus and however, allowed the school to retain one B.T. Assistant post on the reason that Standards 6 to 10 were permitted to be treated as one unit. Consequently, he had surrendered the other two B.T. Assistant posts, which were declared as surplus. In view of the said staff fixation order passed by the third respondent, the approval sought for to the appointments made for other two B.T. Assistants were not considered. 9. From the above stated facts, it is seen that the petitioner's school had appointed three B.T. Assistants, within the sanctioned strength of 12 B.T Assistant posts. Admittedly, the staff fixation order came to be passed by the third respondent only on 10.11.2009, by taking note of the students strength as on 01.08.2009. But the fact remains that the appointment of three B.T. Assistants were made much earlier to such crucial date. At any event, the staff fixation order passed on 10.11.2009 for the academic year 2009-2012 cannot be applied retrospectively to deny the approval of the appointments of those teachers, who were appointed on 02.06.2009 that too within the sanctioned strength of 12 B.T. Assistant posts. If the students strength had fallen on 01.08.2009, subsequent to the appointment of those teachers, certainly the educational authorities are entitled to redeploy the surplus teachers to the other needy schools, but that does not mean that they can deny the approval of the appointment to those teachers, who were appointed much earlier to the staff fixation proceedings. 10. A similar issue was considered by this court in W.P.No.26395 of 2009, dated 14.02.2011 and in that case, the learned single Judge found that the staff fixation order cannot be given with retrospective effect. Considering all the facts and circumstance as stated supra, I am of the view that the petitioner's school is entitled to get the appointment of three B.T. Assistant posts approved who were appointed on 02.06.2009. 11. Considering all the facts and circumstance as stated supra, I am of the view that the petitioner's school is entitled to get the appointment of three B.T. Assistant posts approved who were appointed on 02.06.2009. 11. Now it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that out of those three B.T. Assistants, appointment of one teacher had already been approved, in view of the fact that very staff fixation order itself permitted the school to retain the said post. Therefore, the other two teachers should get their appointment approved. As I found that their appointments were made on 02.06.2009, much earlier to the crucial date as well as to the impugned order, dated 10.11.2009, I find every merit in these writ petitions filed by the petitioners and consequently, I direct the third respondent to approve the appointment of two B.T. Assistants appointed on on 02.06.2009 namely, Eben Shanthi and John Soundararaj, from 02.06.2009, and pay them the salary and other benefits, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Since, the impugned order, dated 10.11.2009 namely, the staff fixation order had declared two B.T Assistant posts as surplus and as I found that the said order can take effect only prospectively and not retrospectively and in view of the fact that the petitioner is not disputing the students strength and questioned the said declaration of surplus of two B.T. Assistants, I only direct the third respondent to give effect to the said order only from 10.11.2009. If any teacher was found surplus, the respondents are entitled to redeploy them into the other needy school, after giving effect to the approval of appointment to those two teachers, who were appointment on 02.06.2009. 13. With the above observations, the both the writ petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.