ORDER 1. These two writ petitions are disposed of through this common order. The question arising in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, both the writ petitions are disposed of jointly. The 5th respondent in W.P. No. 5688 of 2010 is the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 20370 of 2010. Respondents 1 to 4 are common in both the writ petitions. Heard Sri. Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Counsel for Petitioners in W.P. No. 5688 of 2010 and Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Counsel for 5th Respondent in W.P. No. 5688 of 2010 and Counsel for Petitioner in W.P. No. 20370 of 2010. As many as 11 petitioners filed the former writ petition seeking for a Writ of mandamus to declare Proceedings No. 11860/SE.PS.I/A1/2009, dated 31-01-2010, issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and to declare the appointments of the petitioners therein to the respective aided posts with consequential direction to the respondents to release grant-in-aid salaries to the petitioners with effect from 14-6-2004 treating that the appointments of the petitioners in the 5th respondent-Institution as deemed to have been approved by the official respondents. 2. The 5th respondent in W.P. No. 5688 of 2010 challenged the same through W.P. No. 20370 of 2010 seeking an identical relief. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 5688 of 2010. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions may briefly be stated at this stage: (a) The 5th respondent has been running a school imparting education to children at Kothagudem. The 5th respondent addressed a letter to the 4th respondent-District Educational Officer (DEO), Khammam, on 19-7-2003 seeking permission to fill up the grant-in-aid posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs) and School Assistants. The request was to fill up 17 vacancies in all. In response thereto, the 4th respondent issued proceedings on 23-7-2003 permitting the 5th respondent to fill up 17 posts after obtaining permission from the Commissioner and Director of School Education (2nd respondent). The 5th respondent addressed the Employment Exchange on 25-7-2003 seeking for nomination of the candidates. On 26-7-2003, the 5th respondent issued paper advertisement in Vaartha and Deccan Chronicle Newspapers. However, the dates of interview were postponed time and again by the 4th respondent. The 5th respondent addressed the Employment Exchange on 25-7-2003 seeking for nomination of the candidates. On 26-7-2003, the 5th respondent issued paper advertisement in Vaartha and Deccan Chronicle Newspapers. However, the dates of interview were postponed time and again by the 4th respondent. On 23-01-2004, the 4th respondent issued Revised Proceedings permitting the 5th respondent to proceed with the selection for 13 posts only instead of 17 posts for which permission was granted through proceedings dated 23-7-2003. At the same time, the 4th respondent informed the 3rd respondent-Regional Joint Director of School Education (RJD), Warangal, to participate in the selections on receipt of letter from the Government directing the 4th respondent to examine the grievance of the 5th respondent regarding the delay in the completion of the selection process of selecting candidates. Thereupon, proceedings were issued on 20-5-2004 by the 4th respondent nominating the Deputy Educational Officer to participate in the selection process. (b) On 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004, interviews were conducted by the duly constituted Committee and selections were made. On 10-6-2004, the Deputy Educational Officer forwarded the selection proceedings to the 4th respondent in respect of Secondary Grade Teachers and Language Pundits; but, the District Collector, Khammam, raised certain objections through proceedings dated 15-6-2004. (c) Questioning the same, the 5th respondent filed W.P. No. 11886 of 2004. Through orders dated 16-7-2004, the proceedings of the District Collector were suspended. It would appear that a contempt petition was subsequently filed for violation of the interim orders in W.P. No. 11886 of 2004. In another writ petition in W.P. No. 20814 of 2005 filed by the 5th respondent, the respondents 3 and 4 were directed to identify the surplus posts of teachers in aided institutions within the district with a condition that the petitioners must be appointed in the vacancies otherwise. On the basis of the orders in W.P. No. 20814 of 2005, the 4th respondent submitted proceedings dated 23-10-2005 to the 3rd respondent making proposals. On 31-01-2006, the Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 32, Education (SE. PS-2) Department, dated 31-01-2006, permitting the 5th respondent-School and other Schools to fill up 123 aided posts. On 24-02-2006, the 4th respondent submitted proposals to the 3rd respondent in respect of School Assistants. In the meanwhile, on 09-3-2006, W.P. No. 11886 of 2004 and batch were disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to finalise the proposals submitted by the 4th respondent. On 24-02-2006, the 4th respondent submitted proposals to the 3rd respondent in respect of School Assistants. In the meanwhile, on 09-3-2006, W.P. No. 11886 of 2004 and batch were disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to finalise the proposals submitted by the 4th respondent. (d) However, on 05-6-2007, the 3rd respondent rejected the proposals creating cause of action for the present writ petitions. The 2nd respondent, in his turn, rejected the appeal filed by the 5th respondent through proceedings dated 08-4-2009. The 1st respondent also rejected the revision through the impugned proceedings dated 31-01-2010. Questioning the same, the two writ petitions are laid. 4. The official respondents laid counter denying the contention that the rejection of the proposals of the 4th respondent by the 3rd respondent and subsequent proceedings are illegal. The respondents contended that the Employment Exchange sponsored the list of candidates to the 5th respondent on 28-7-2003 which list was valid only for 3 months according to the terms and conditions of the Employment Officer, Khammam, vide the letter of the Employment Officer dated 27-7-2003. While so, interviews were conducted on 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004, by which time the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange stood expired and became obsolete. The conduct of the interviews much after the valid period of the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is irregular, according to the official respondents. 5. The official respondents also contended that although 173 candidates applied for 8 posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs), only 101 persons appeared for the interview and that large number of candidates did not attend the interview. It is further contended that interviews were conducted for 13 posts but selection was made for 9 posts only, out of which 2 selected candidates belong to the Scheduled Castes Category whereas there was no candidate in the Scheduled Tribes Category. It is also pointed out that G.O. Rt. No. 62 has no application as the Government Order was issued on 31-01-2006 while the vacancies in the present case arose in 2003. It is contended that in view of Rule 12(8) of G.O.Ms. No. 1, Education, dated 01-01-1994, all appointments made for aided or unaided institutions are subject to approval of the competent authority and that under Rule 12(9) of G.O.Ms. No. 1, the appointments could be only after the approval by the competent authority. It is contended that in view of Rule 12(8) of G.O.Ms. No. 1, Education, dated 01-01-1994, all appointments made for aided or unaided institutions are subject to approval of the competent authority and that under Rule 12(9) of G.O.Ms. No. 1, the appointments could be only after the approval by the competent authority. It is urged that the appointments of the petitioners consequently could not be accepted as the appointments were without approval by the competent authority. 6. The official respondents further alleged in their counter that Government Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2004, dated 20-10-2004, created ban of filling up of vacancies of aided posts. The High Court in W.A. No. 1578 of 2005 and batch held that the Government Memo does not have retrospective operation. S.L.P. No. 9541 of 2007 is pending before the Supreme Court on the orders of the writ appeal. The official respondents finally contended that there was no contractual obligation on the petitioners on the one hand and the official respondents 1 to 4 on the other hand and that the petitioners cannot directly approach the Government for appointment against the vacancies and that it is only the management which can make such a request. The official respondents consequently seek for the dismissal of both the writ petitions. 7. In the selections held on 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004 through a duly constituted Selection Committee, the 5th respondent selected the petitioners as SGTs and School Assistants. When the 5th respondent sought for approval of the same by the Government, the 4th respondent recommended the proposals to the 3rd respondent for approval. However, the 3rd respondent rejected the proposal. Subsequent appeal and revision before the 2nd respondent "and the 1" respondent respectively stood dismissed. Hence, the writ petitions. The relief sought for by the petitioners in the main case on the one hand and by the 5th respondent in the writ petition filed by him on the other hand is identical. They seek for the setting aside of the impugned proceedings and to direct the respondents to approve the selection of the petitioners. 8. As many as 7 objections have been raised by the 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 05-6-2007. One of the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education is that Government Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2004, dated 20-10-2004 banned the filling up of aided vacancies and that the petitioners consequently cannot be absorbed. 8. As many as 7 objections have been raised by the 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 05-6-2007. One of the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education is that Government Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2004, dated 20-10-2004 banned the filling up of aided vacancies and that the petitioners consequently cannot be absorbed. Through orders in W.P. No. 9503 of 2005 and batch, dated 30-7-2013, I set aside the ban memo. That apart, in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School, Adilabad, in W.A. No. 1578 of 2005 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Memo has no retrospective operation. The order of the Division Bench in the writ appeal was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School, (2011) 9 SCC 613 . Thus, the Memo dated 20-10-2004 is not in force and even otherwise, the Memo has no operative force for the cases where the process of recruitment was initiated by the managements prior to 20-10-2004. 9. It was argued by Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Counsel for 5th Respondent School that in the present case, the process was commenced on 19-7-2003 when the 5th respondent addressed the 4th respondent seeking permission to fill up the posts of SGTs and School Assistants and on 23-7-2003 when the 4th respondent granted permission for the filling up of 17 posts; consequently, process of recruitment in the present case commenced prior to issuance of Government Memo dated 20-10-2004. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education that in view of the Government Memo dated 20-10-2004 creating ban for the filling up of aided vacancies, permission cannot be granted and that the claim of the writ petitioners, therefore, is liable to be rejected, cannot be sustained in this background. 10. The 3rd respondent took an objection that the roster points were not properly determined and that in view of G.O. Rt. No. 62, Education, dated 31-01-2006, which provided for different set of vacant posts, G.O. Rt. No. 62, Education, dated 31-01-2006, accorded permission to various institutions to fill up 132 aided posts through para 5 of the Government Order. As already pointed out, the 5th respondent-School figured at serial No. 11 in the Annexure of G.O. Rt. No. 62. 11. However, after hearing Sri. No. 62, Education, dated 31-01-2006, accorded permission to various institutions to fill up 132 aided posts through para 5 of the Government Order. As already pointed out, the 5th respondent-School figured at serial No. 11 in the Annexure of G.O. Rt. No. 62. 11. However, after hearing Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Counsel for 5th Respondent, the question is as to who shall accord permission. G.O.Ms. No. 1, Education (P.S. 2), dated 01-01-1994, created Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993. Rule 12(3A) of G.O.Ms. No. 1 envisages that before filling up of the aided teaching or non-teaching posts, the educational agency shall necessarily obtain clearance from the competent authority. Rule 3 defines competent authorities. While the Regional Joint Director of School Education was the competent authority in respect of Secondary Schools, it was amended substituting the Government in place of the Regional Joint Director of School Education as the competent authority to accord permission to the 5th respondent to select and appoint SGTs and School Assistants. For Primary and Upper Primary Schools, DEO is the competent authority under Rule 3. The contention of the respondents 1 to 4 that the 5th respondent did not obtain the permission of the competent authority therefore cannot be sustained. 12. The 3rd respondent also took the stand that the selection process was proceeded with the list sent by the Employment Exchange, Khammam, which list had already expired as the life of the list sent by the Employment Exchange was only for 3 months. It may be noticed that initial permission was accorded by the DEO on 23-7-2003. The paper advertisement was given on 26-7-2003 and the selections were held on 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004. The date of the selection was postponed by the 4th respondent on several occasions. When the Employment Exchange was requested to sponsor candidates, the Employment Exchange accordingly sponsored candidates. It was submitted by Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar that where the delayed selection process took place on 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004 which was not due to any shortfall on the part of the (sic) respondent, it is unjust for the 3rd respondent now to claim that the selection process was conducted with a dead list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Employment Exchange forwarded the list as early as on 28-7-2003. The Employment Exchange forwarded the list as early as on 28-7-2003. The dates of the interview could not be finalized owing to the postponement of the same by the 4th respondent. Consequently, the list sent by the Employment Exchange shall be considered to be proper list for the purpose of conducting the interviews with the candidates sent by the Employment Exchange. Be it noted that it was submitted by Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar with his clarity and immediate retort to the counter of the 3rd Respondent that the 5th Respondent proceeded with the interviews accepting the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as eligible candidates for selection. The 5th respondent cannot be blamed in any way where the 5th respondent allowed such candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange to participate in the interviews. The objection raised by the 3rd respondent that the 5th respondent conducted interviews with a dead list of candidates therefore is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected. 13. It is also urged by the 3rd respondent that although the Employment Exchange had sponsored candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Selection Committee had not taken steps to call them for interview through registered letters. Admittedly, the Selection Committee organized by the 5th respondent called these candidates for interview by sending call letters through Certificate of Posting. I am afraid that where the rules and the notification did not provide that the candidates shall be called for interview through registered letters, the selection cannot be cancelled on the ground that the candidates were not called for interview through call letters sent by registered post. It would be sufficient if the candidates were informed through call letters sent through Certificate of Posting. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education that the very interviews are against the rules since all the candidates were not called for the interview, as registered post call letters were not sent to them accordingly is found not meritorious and is rejected. 14. One of the contentions raised is that the academic year has changed by the date of the interviews from the time applications were invited and that fresh permission was needed from the competent authority. Permission is not granted academic year-wise. Permission is accorded for filling up of the vacancies that arose. 14. One of the contentions raised is that the academic year has changed by the date of the interviews from the time applications were invited and that fresh permission was needed from the competent authority. Permission is not granted academic year-wise. Permission is accorded for filling up of the vacancies that arose. Consequently, rejection to accept the selection on the ground that fresh permission was needed from the competent authority for the fresh academic year cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. 15. It was further submitted by Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Counsel for 5th Respondent School that under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms. No. 1, the competent authority is the District Educational Officer for Pre-Primary, Primary and Upper Primary Schools and the Government for Secondary Schools. The 5th respondent is said to be a Primary School. It is the 4th respondent who appears to be the competent authority under Rule 3. The 4th respondent accorded permission way back on 23-7-2003. Therefore, the official respondents cannot now go back and claim that permission was not accorded by the competent authority. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Kowturu Pavan Kumar, tried to invoke equities contending that the petitioners have been appointed in 2004, that they have been working since 2004 and that equities are in favour of the petitioners. I am afraid that equities cannot be worked out in this case. If the selection of the petitioners is in accordance with the rules and regulations, the official respondents would be liable to approve the selections. If the selections were not in accordance with the rules, they are liable to be rejected. The petitioners cannot ask for approval of their selection even if the selection was not in accordance with the rules on the ground that they have been working since 2004. If the petitioners have been working since 2004 it is at their own peril; they cannot seek for any equities in their favour in the selection process. 17. It is not as though the selected candidates in the petitioners were not qualified. It is also not as though the petitioners were selected through back door methods. As many as 101 candidates were interviewed on 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004 wherein the petitioners were selected. 17. It is not as though the selected candidates in the petitioners were not qualified. It is also not as though the petitioners were selected through back door methods. As many as 101 candidates were interviewed on 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004 wherein the petitioners were selected. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that where the selections were in accordance with rules and regulations, the appointments are liable to be approved by the respondents, as there was no irregularity in the selection process. 18. The 3rd respondent has admitted that the proceedings of the 4th respondent according permission were approved by the 3rd respondent also. On 19-7-2003, the 5th respondent addressed the 4th respondent submitting revised proposals for filling up of the vacancies of 17 teaching staff including 11 SGTs and 2 School Assistants. On 23-7-2003, the 4th respondent issued proceedings making it a condition that the 5th respondent shall obtain necessary approval/permission in respect of promotions and shifting of posts. However, so far as the permission granted is concerned, as it is not a case of promotion and shifting of posts, it is to be considered that the permission was accorded in absolute terms. The Deputy Educational Officer, Kothagudem, in conformity with the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 23-7-2003, issued proceedings on 26-8-2003 directing the 5th respondent to complete the recruitment process in accordance with the rules. 19. As already pointed out, the 4th respondent had modified the earlier proceedings through proceedings dated 23-01-2004 refixing the roster points. Again, the Deputy Educational Officer, Kothagudem, issued proceedings on 23-5-2004 on the basis of the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 23-7-2003 and 23-01-2004 fixing the roster points in this background. After completion of the selection process on 03-6-2004 and 04-6-2004, it is not appropriate for the respondents to reject the same at this stage. 20. It may be noticed that Rule 12(8) under G.O.Ms. No. 1 was amended on 30-8-2005 through G.O.Ms. No. 114. Prior to that, Rule 12(8) included a clause that if appointments notified to the competent authority have not been rejected within two months, they are deemed to have been approved. 20. It may be noticed that Rule 12(8) under G.O.Ms. No. 1 was amended on 30-8-2005 through G.O.Ms. No. 114. Prior to that, Rule 12(8) included a clause that if appointments notified to the competent authority have not been rejected within two months, they are deemed to have been approved. Where the deemed provision under Rule 12(8) was in existence by the date of the selection of the petitioners, the selection is liable to be deemed to have been approved as the same had not been rejected within two months stipulated under the then existing Rule 12(8) under G.O.Ms. No. 1. Viewed in any angle, I am afraid that the contention of the official respondents that the selection process and the selection of the petitioners were bad and the non-approval was just and proper cannot be accepted. I therefore consider that this is an appropriate case where directions deserve to be issued in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are allowed. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to consider granting approval to the selection of the petitioners in the School of the 5th respondent disregarding the objections raised by the Regional Joint Director and the objections raised subsequently by the Commissioner and Director of School Education and the Government. No costs. Petition allowed.