Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent, Chief Educational Officer, in Mu.Mu.No.11568/Aa1/2008, dated 09.03.2009 and quash the same insofar as condition Nos.3 and 4 therein are concerned, and further direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (History) in the fifth respondent school, w.e.f. the date of her actual appointment, i.e. 01.06.2006 and disburse the grant-in-aid towards her salary w.e.f. the said date. 2. The petitioner is working as B.T. Assistant in the fifth respondent school, which is a recognised and aided Minority Institution of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kottar. G.O.Ms.No.79, Secondary Education -U1, dated 14.06.2002, was issued so as to upgrade the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers as Graduate Teachers with effect from 01.06.2002. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education -Budget, dated 27.06.2003, mandated that only B.Ed., Graduate Teachers should be appointed in all kinds of schools for Standards VI to X, according to the subjects, viz., English, Science, Mathematics, History and Geography. G.O.Ms.No.244, School Education Department, dated 04.07.2008, was issued by the Government stating that as and when the Graduate Teachers are appointed in Standards 6 to 8, preference should be given not only to the subjects, viz., English, Mathematics and Science, but also to other subjects. The said Government Order is followed by G.O.Ms.No.144, School Education (D1) Department, dated 04.07.2008, wherein certain instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.244, have been modified to the effect that the Chief Educational Officer must fix the subject roster, viz., Tamil, English, Mathematics, Science and Social Science and it cannot be changed in future. According to the petitioner, though in the G.O.Ms.No.144, it is stated that necessary steps would be taken to bring amendments to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, no such amendments have been effected till date. 3. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that the actual date of appointment of the petitioner was on 01.06.2006, however, in view of the condition Nos.3 and 4 of the impugned order, the fifth respondent school has issued a fresh appointment order as though she was appointed only on 04.07.2008. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the above relief. 4. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the above relief. 4. Whereas the fourth respondent has filed the counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and opposed the writ petition as not maintainable and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in The Manager, RC Schools, Salem Diocese Society (Salem-Namakal Districts, Mary Palace, 63, Thammannan Road, Salem -636 009 v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [W.P.No.19902 of 2008, decided on 30.04.2009], which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2058 of 2010, decided on 21.03.2011 and prayed for the similar relief to the petitioner also. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 contended that the order impugned herein has been passed by the third respondent after taking into account all the relevant Government Orders and since the petitioner has been appointed as BT Assistant (History) on 04.07.2008, she cannot claim any benefits prior to that date. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. This Court, in The Manager, RC Schools, Salem Diocese Society (Salem-Namakal Districts, Mary Palace, 63, Thammannan Road, Salem -636 009 v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [W.P.No.19902 of 2008, decided on 30.04.2009], held as follows: "2. A similar issue came up before this Court, which is reported in 2005-WLR-515 (M. Sivakumar Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu by Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9 and two others, in which paragraph 7 is relevant and the same is extracted as under:- "7. A careful perusal of the impugned orders would show that no reasons have been assigned by the Respondents to order salary for the Petitioner only from 28.3.1996 when the Management has very clearly stated that he joined duty as P.G. Assistant History on 25.10.1993 itself and is serving in the said capacity till date. A careful perusal of the impugned orders would show that no reasons have been assigned by the Respondents to order salary for the Petitioner only from 28.3.1996 when the Management has very clearly stated that he joined duty as P.G. Assistant History on 25.10.1993 itself and is serving in the said capacity till date. But, neither the second Respondent in his order dated 28.3.1996 nor the third Respondent in his order dated 18.3.1997 have considered this aspect so as to grant the approval as it has been sought for on the part of the Management nor any reason has been assigned for denying the salary to the Petitioner from 25.10.1993 to 27.3.1996 and granting the same only from 28.3.1996 in spite of the specific case of the school authorities that on the retirement of the erstwhile Headmaster Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy, who was also taking History classes for the Higher Secondary Sections, there was virtually no teacher to take the History Classes in the school and hence the Petitioner who was a M.A.(History), B.Ed. candidate was appointed to cater to the needs of the school. Therefore, both the orders passed by the Respondents 2 and 3, since being inconsistent ones, this Court has to cause its interference into the same and quash the same and grant the relief as sought for on the part of the Petitioner and hence the following order: In result, (i) the above Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. (ii) The order of the second Respondent dated 28.3.1996 made in his K.Dis.No.47458/W6/95 and the consequential order of the third Respondent passed in his Na.Ka.No.1516/95/A1, dated 18.3.1997 are quashed. (iii) The respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue necessary orders granting approval of the Petitioner's appointment as P.G. Assistant (History) in Sri Kayilai Subramani Desiga Swamigal Higher Secondary School, Tirupanandal, Thanjavur District w.e.f. 25.10.1993 i.e. from the date of his appointment in the school, within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 3. It is also not explained by the Respondents as to why they refused to approve the said conversion with effect from 3.9.2003, despite the admitted fact that the said teacher was appointed to the said post on that date. 4. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 3. It is also not explained by the Respondents as to why they refused to approve the said conversion with effect from 3.9.2003, despite the admitted fact that the said teacher was appointed to the said post on that date. 4. In view of the said reasons and following the said judgment, this impugned order is set aside, in so far as the same is adverse to the Petitioner is concerned and accordingly, this Writ Petition is ordered, directing the Respondents to disburse the arrears of salary to the concerned teacher within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed." Admittedly, the above said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2058 of 2010, decided on 21.03.2011. 9. A reading of the aforesaid judgment of this Court would show that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment and the relief as prayed for by the petitioner, could be granted to her. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Mu.Mu.No.11568/Aa1/2008, dated 09.03.2009, is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court and the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.