Judgment : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to absorb her into grant-in-aid vacancy as per the proposal sent by the 4th respondent-Educational Society on 17.03.2003 by declaring that the proceedings in D.O.Lr.No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, dated 20.10.2004, as being inapplicable and inoperative insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the 4th respondent-Educational Society, said to be an aided linguistic minority institution, as Sweeper on 24.06.1996 prohibiting all sorts of recruitment and regulations in aided institutions. Later in course of time, the 4th respondent sent a proposal on 17.03.2003 to the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioner into grant-in-aid vacancy. Subsequent to sending of the proposals by the 4th respondent, a general ban seemed to have come into force on 20.10.2004 prohibiting all sorts of recruitment and regularisations in aided institutions. In any event, the authorities have not chosen either to accept or reject the proposals sent by the 4th respondent-Educational Society. Having waited for about three years, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the authorities have substantially been carried away by the notion that since there was a ban imposed on 20.10.2004, the proposal concerning the petitioner could not be entertained. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance on an unreported judgment dated 30.01.2012 of this Court in W.P.No.14013 of 2010. The learned counsel has contended that involving the same respondents in the said case, this Court gave a direction that the ban is only prospective in nature and that it could not affect the rights of the persons whose proposals had been pending before the Government prior to the said ban. A perusal of the said judgment indicates that the issue is identical involving the same set of respondents. After referring to various G.Os., holding the field concerning the regularisation or ratification of recruitments for the aided vacancies, this Court has held: "It is not in dispute that as per the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9541 of 2007, dated 06.09.2011, the ban orders are prospective and not retrospective. As far as the petitioner case is concerned, admittedly, the proposals have been sent on 26.07.2003 and 31.10.2003, i.e., even before the ban came into effect. As far as the petitioner case is concerned, admittedly, the proposals have been sent on 26.07.2003 and 31.10.2003, i.e., even before the ban came into effect. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the District Educational Officer has sent the records only on 24.11.2004. Even if the date of sending proposal is not taken into consideration and the date of receiving records from the DEO office are taken into consideration, the proposals were pending with the respondents since 26.07.2003. Admittedly, ban came into force with effect from 20.10.2004, i.e., for about 1 year 3 months the proposals sent by the fifth respondent were pending with the official respondents without passing any orders. Since the ban orders cannot be treated with retrospective effect, it is clear that the official respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioners." Going by the above ratio in view of similarity of facts and law, I propose to dispose of the present writ petition in the similar manner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the proposals sent by the 4th respondent concerning the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.