Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order of the second respondent and for consequential direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of one Mr.R.Saravana Babu as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school, from the date of appointment i.e. 20/02/2012 and to pay all necessary attendant financial benefits like salary with arrears and all other emoluments. 2. The case of the petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is that the petitioner school is fully a Government aided school, established and approved by the District Educational Officer in its Proceedings dated 24.11.1954. The present strength of the school is 183 comprising of 88 boys and 95 girls. The school is having standards from First to Fifth. The approved strength of school is one Headmaster and four Secondary Grade Teachers, altogether five. The present strength of the school is one Headmaster and three Secondary Grade Teachers and that one vacancy of Secondary Grade Teacher arose with effect from 01.05.2011 on the resignation of one K.Vanitha, Secondary Grade Teacher. The Headmaster of the petitioner school is a Male and the remaining three Secondary Grade Teachers are female. The petitioner school has appointed one Mr.R.Saravana Babu on 20.02.2012 by following the roaster system as prescribed by the School Education Department. In fact, the second respondent has given permission vide his proceedings dated 31.01.2012 to fill up the vacancy as per the norms. Accordingly, the petitioner school called for names from the Employment Exchange and out of the names recommended by the Employment Exchange, the said Mr.R.Saravana Babu was considered along with other candidates and selected based on merits on 20.02.2012 and he was duly appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher by the petitioner school vide proceedings dated 20.02.2012. Since then he has been working as Secondary Grade Teacher. But the second respondent vide proceedings dated 11.07.2012 rejected the approval of the said appointment of Mr.R.Saravana Babu, holding that the petitioner school did not follow the 1: 3 Male/Female ratio as provided in G.O.Ms.No.197 School Education Department dated 21.07.2000. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Vijayakumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also gone through the documents available on record including the counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent. 4. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the above said prayer. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Vijayakumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also gone through the documents available on record including the counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent. 4. At the time of final hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the number of orders passed by this Court wherein this Court allowed the writ petitions similar in nature and ultimately directed the respondent to approve the appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher made by the aided schools. He also made a reference to a few orders made in W.P.No.3355 of 2010 dated 18.11.2010, in the case of S.Elamparithi vs. The Director of Elementary Education and three others, and another order of this Court made in W.P.No.19473 of 2012 dated 03.08.2012 in the case of G.Manimegalai vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and two others. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the orders passed by this Court on the very same issue, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of that orders thereby the appointment of Mr.R.Saravana Babu, made by the petitioner should be approved by the second respondent. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also admit that there are orders passed by this Court wherein direction was issued to the respondent to approve the appointment made by the aided schools as that of the petitioner. 6. For ready reference, I rely upon the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19473 of 2012 dated 03.08.2012, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court has passed the following order: "7. In similar cases, this Court also allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.3355 of 2010 on 18.11.2010. Considering the fact that the appointment made by the petitioner is within the permissible ratio, the appointment of Mr.Prabhu as Secondary Grade Teacher is required to be approved by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to approve the appointment of Mr.Prabhu as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to approve the appointment of Mr.Prabhu as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is not in dispute that the said Prabhu was appointed by the education committee by way of resolution on 23.02.2012 and he reported to the duty on 24.02.2012 and he is continuously working. Therefore, his appointment should be approved retrospectively from the date of his appointment i.e. on 24.02.2012. " 7. Since the case in hand is similar to that of the case already decided by this Court and the direction issued by this Court, the writ petition is to be allowed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently the second respondent is directed to approve the appointment of Mr.R.Saravana Babu, as Secondary Grade Teacher, made by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.R.Saravanababu was appointed by the petitioner school on 20.02.2012 and he reported to the duty on 20.02.2012 and he has been continuously working. If that be so, there is no impediment for approving his appointment. Hence the appointment of Mr.R.Saravana Babu should be approved retrospectively from the date of his appointment i.e. on 20.02.2012 and necessary orders to be passed to this effect, as directed above. No costs.