Judgment The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the 4th respondent dated 22.07.2008 and for a direction directing the respondents to accord approval to her appointment as Junior Assistant in St.Francis Xavier Girls High School, Pandalur Nilgiris, with effect from 01.09.2006, with all attendant benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.09.2006 in the 5th respondent's school, viz., St. Francis Xavier Girls' High School, which is a religious, charitable, educational institution, established in the year 1986. It is a minority Institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was appointed in a sanctioned and regular post by the said order dated 01.09.2006. Further, according to the petitioner there was a vacancy existed for the post of Junior Assistant in the 5th respondent School on the day, when she was appointed. The 5th respondent has forwarded the papers of the petitioner for approval to the 4th respondent on 10.10.2007. The 4th respondent, by the impugned order dated 22.07.2008, has rejected the proposal on the ground that the Government has banned filling up of vacant posts by direct recruitment except in respect of certain categories of posts such as Teachers, Doctors and Police vide G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 29.11.2001 and that her appointment was during the ban period and since the said G.O. was in existence, approval was not accorded and the papers have been sent back to the School. Challenging the said order dated 22.07.2008, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that there was a ban for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.11.2001 and hence, the 5th respondent School ought not to have appointed the petitioner. The main contention of the Government is that the petitioner has been continued in service without prior approval and hence she is not entitled to any relief and in any event, she is not entitled to monetary benefits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned and regular post. The main contention of the Government is that the petitioner has been continued in service without prior approval and hence she is not entitled to any relief and in any event, she is not entitled to monetary benefits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned and regular post. Further, according to the learned counsel, it is true that there was a ban for filling up of the vacant posts for the aforesaid categories by G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnal and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001, however, the same was lifted on 07.02.2006, by G.O.Ms.No.14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was appointed after the ban was lifted on 01.09.2006 and hence it is crystal clear that without reference to the second G.O. viz., G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 07.02.2006, the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.203, School Education (D1) Department, dated 23.07.2010 to the effect that approval can be granted to the posts mentioned therein, from the date of filling up of those posts, which includes the post of Junior Assistant also. 6. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the following decisions of this Court:- (i) paragraph No.5 in the case of S. Christy vs. The Chief Educational Officer reported in 2011 (5) CTC 532, which reads as follows:- "5. In view of the settled law by this Court, the stand taken by the Respondent in not considering the case of the Petitioner for granting approval of the Petitioner is not sustainable in law, as on true interpretation of Rule 15, only conclusion which can be drawn is that for appointment to sanctioned post, no prior approval is necessary, nor it can be a ground to deny the approval to appointment of a qualified person". (ii) paragraph No.4 to 6 of the order in the case of Thiruvallur Higher Secondary School, Palamaner Road, Gudiyattam vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 (5) CTC 648, which read as follows:- 4. (ii) paragraph No.4 to 6 of the order in the case of Thiruvallur Higher Secondary School, Palamaner Road, Gudiyattam vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 (5) CTC 648, which read as follows:- 4. Similar issue as to whether after lifting of the ban, approval of appointment of a person appointed in a non-teaching post in an aided school can be kept pending and whether the said person is entitled to get salary at least from the date on which the ban order was lifted, was considered by me in W.P.(MD)No.484 of 2007 by order dated 30.10.2007 and I have allowed the Writ Petition and in paragraph No.19 and 20, held as follows:- "19. Similar ban order issued by the Department on the ground that new norms are contemplated and pending the same no appointment in aided schools are to be made was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.10237 of 1994 by order dated 16.08.1999. Since the petitioner was appointed from 5.6.2002 and he is continuously working in the sanctioned post, the respondents may be justified in not approving the appointment of the petitioner from 05.06.2002 to 06.02.2006. The petitioner has got a right to get his appointment approved, once the ban order is lifted. Admittedly, the ban order imposed, not to fill up the posts, was lifted on 07.02.2006. Hence, the petitioner has got every right to get his post approved with salary and other benefits with effect from 07.02.2006. Once the ban order is lifted, the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973, comes into operation and the petitioner is deemed to be appointed on regular basis, as he was appointed within the sanctioned post in the fourth respondent school. 20. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 07.02.2006. The third respondent is directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 07.02.2006 and pay arrears of salary from 07.02.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". 5. The third respondent is directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 07.02.2006 and pay arrears of salary from 07.02.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above order was challenged by the respondent Education Department in W.A.(MD) No.308 of 2008 and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of Madurai Bench on 4.8.2008. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal by observing as follows: "4. After considering the rival submissions made on either side, following the judgment of the Supreme Court and order of this Court, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders of the appellants with a direction to approve the appointment of the respondent/petitioner as Lab Assistant with effect from 7.2.2006 and the third appellant was directed to pass orders approving the appointment of the first respondent with effect from 7.2.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Judge dated 30.10.2007 passed in W.P.(MD)No.484 of 2007. Therefore, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed". The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the first respondent in W.A.(MD) No.308 of 2008 filed separate Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.456 of 2008 and challenged the order not giving direction to approve the appointment from the date of appointment till the date of lifting of the ban and the said Writ Appeal was also allowed by the Madurai Bench of this Court on 4.8.2008 by observing as follows:- "2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the appellant from the date of appointment should have been approved by the learned Single Judge instead of restricting the prayer. 4. It has been brought to our notice that in similar circumstances the Government has issued orders in respect of similar employees approving their services from the date of their initial appointment. When once the ban is revoked, the Government should have considered and approved the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. 4. It has been brought to our notice that in similar circumstances the Government has issued orders in respect of similar employees approving their services from the date of their initial appointment. When once the ban is revoked, the Government should have considered and approved the appointment of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. Therefore, the orders of the learned Single Judge need to be modified to this extent. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed modifying the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2007 made in W.P.(MD) No.484 of 2007 and directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment. 6. In the light of the above referred judgments of the Division Bench, the impugned order dated 06.03.2003 is set aside with a direction to the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of S.K. Rajasekar working in the petitioner school as Junior Assistant, with effect from 01.07.2002 with all monetary benefits. Necessary orders to that effect is directed to be passed by the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the arrears of salary payable to the said S.K. Rajasekar is directed to be paid within four weeks therefrom". (iii) paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the order in the case of Dr. S. Sukumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 670 , which read as follows:- "9. The point arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get his appointment approved from the second respondent as he is appointed in a sanctioned post in the fourth respondent aided minority college, in a retirement vacancy. The retirement vacancy arose on 31.5.2008. The fact about the availability of the post in the fourth respondent-college as per the staff fixation order is not in dispute and the same is also not the contention raised by the second respondent in the reply to the RTI query. The retirement vacancy arose on 31.5.2008. The fact about the availability of the post in the fourth respondent-college as per the staff fixation order is not in dispute and the same is also not the contention raised by the second respondent in the reply to the RTI query. The petitioner having been appointed in a sanctioned post of the fourth respondent college and the fourth respondent college being a minority college, there is no necessity to get prior permission from the department and the said issue was considered by me in detail in W.P.No.19715 of 2009, dated 31.3.2011 and a direction was issued to approve the appointment of the petitioner following the Division Bench judgments. In the recent Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.2345 of 2011, dated 5.3.2012 also, the same view is taken. 10. Applying the above judgments to the facts of this case, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the department of Botany from 16.6.2008 and to pay the salary and other benefits from 16.6.2008 to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While approving the appointment, it is open to the second respondent to verify the qualifications possessed by the petitioner as to whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner is sufficient for the post or not. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed". 7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Useful reference can be made to G.O.Ms.No.14, Personal and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 07.02.2006, which reads as follows:- "The Government have issued orders completely banning the filling up of vacant posts by direct recruitment except in respect of certain categories of posts such as Teachers, Doctors and Police Constabulary, considered essential, vide the Government orders read above. 2. The Government, after careful consideration have decided to lift the ban orders for filling up of posts by direct recruitment. 3. The Government accordingly direct that the ban on filling up of posts by direct recruitment issued in the Government Order cited be lifted with immediate effect. The orders in G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001 are cancelled". 9. 3. The Government accordingly direct that the ban on filling up of posts by direct recruitment issued in the Government Order cited be lifted with immediate effect. The orders in G.O.Ms.No.212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001 are cancelled". 9. From a perusal of the above G.O. it is clear that the ban has been lifted and the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 29.11.2001 has been cancelled. 10. In the case on hand, there is a mistake on the part of the Government in refusing approval. The impugned order was passed only on the pretext that there was a ban in appointment to the post, without realizing the fact that the ban was lifted, even prior to the appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the contention that approval needs to be accorded by the Government cannot be accepted, apart from the fact that the authorities cannot deny approval to appointment of a qualified person in a sanctioned post, that too, when admittedly the vacancy existed on the date of the selection of the petitioner to the said post. Hence, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Further, the learned Judge of this Court in the decision in the case of S.Christy vs. The Chief Educational Officer reported in 2011 (5) CTC 532, has made it very clear that for appointment to the sanctioned post, no approval is necessary and the authorities cannot deny approval to appointment of a qualified person on the ground that appointment was made without any prior approval. 12. That apart, similar issue was considered by this Court and orders passed in favour of the petitioner therein in the case of Thiruvallur Higher Secondary School, Palamaner Road, Gudiyattam vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 (5) CTC 648, following the Judgments of the Division Bench of this Court. 13. Besides, in identical circumstances, in the case of Dr. S. Sukumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 670 , this Court referring to the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.19715 of 2009 dated 31.3.2011 and also following the Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.2345 of 2011 dated 5.3.2012, allowed the writ petition. 14. 13. Besides, in identical circumstances, in the case of Dr. S. Sukumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 670 , this Court referring to the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.19715 of 2009 dated 31.3.2011 and also following the Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.2345 of 2011 dated 5.3.2012, allowed the writ petition. 14. In the light of the above referred judgments and also in view of the fact that the authorities cannot deny approval to appointment of a qualified person in a sanctioned post coupled with the fact that the ban was lifted even prior to the appointment of the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2008 is set aside with a direction to the 4th respondent to approve the appointment of Sr.Jayaseeli working in the 5th respondent school as Junior Assistant, with effect from 01.09.2006 with all monetary benefits. Necessary orders to that effect is directed to be passed by the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to settle the benefits due to the petitioner with effect from the date of her initial appointment viz., 01.09.2006 and pay all the amounts/arrears, if not already paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that salary of the petitioner shall be paid from the month of July 2014, without fail. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.