Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings A.thi.mu.No.141/A1/09 dated 06.02.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant with all consequential benefits. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the issue on hand is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 01.02.2011 made in Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.703 of 2009. He has drawn the attention of this Court with regard to paragraph:6 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:- “6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that one of the Special Teacher post of Vocational Instructor in Tailoring became vacant and in the said vacancy, the first respondent was appointed with effect from 30.04.2008 and she is serving in the second respondent school all these years. The learned counsel also submitted that the said sanctioned post is in existence and the appellants neither declared the said post as surplus nor resume the post till date from the second respondent school. To prove the availability of the post, staff fixation order of the school is filed. The reason stated by the District Elementary Educational Officer for rejecting the request for approval was that there is reduction of student strength. The very same issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1263 of 2001 and by Judgment dated 22.01.2004, the Division Bench held that if a person is appointed in a sanctioned post, the approval of appointment cannot be rejected and if there is fall in strength and the post become surplus, after granting approval of the post, the said teacher along with post could be transferred/deployed to a needy school. The same is the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this case.” He has also submitted that the petitioner is also similarly placed person like that of the first respondent in W.A.(MD).No.703 of 2009. 3. Following the said principle, I have also allowed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4942 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014. 4. The same is the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this case.” He has also submitted that the petitioner is also similarly placed person like that of the first respondent in W.A.(MD).No.703 of 2009. 3. Following the said principle, I have also allowed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.4942 of 2011 dated 30.04.2014. 4. In view of the above, the impugned order of the second respondent is set aside and first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra and grant all the monetary and attendant benefits to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. This Writ Petition is allowed, accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.