Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Gonson Swaminath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. The Writ Appeal is filed by the Management as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2011 made in W.P.No.24228 of 2009, wherein also the Management has challenged the order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.05.2009, rejecting the request seeking approval to the appointment of J.Ramesh as Vocational Instructor in the appellant's Aided school with effect from 15.10.1997, with a consequential prayer to disburse the grant-in-aid towards his salary and allowances. 2. It is the case of the appellant's School that the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.1719, Education Department, dated 14.09.1978, permitted the vocational course at the higher secondary stage from the academic year 1978-79. The major vocational groups which are identified by the Government are broad subjects such as Agriculture, Home Science, Commerce and Science, Small Farm Management, etc. In respect of the qualifications with reference to various vocational subjects, the annexure to the government order prescribes the same and for the post of Small Farm Management, Agro based Industries, Sericulture & Agriculture and Plant Protection, Vegetables and Fruits, B.Sc. (Agriculture) was prescribed as required educational qualification. The same is stated in clause 8 of the Annexure. 3. The said J.Ramesh who possessed B.Sc. Agriculture degree was appointed as Vocational Instructor for Agriculture (Vegetables and Fruits) with effect from 15.10.1997. The said appointment was not approved and finally in order of the Director of School Education dated 18.05.2009 it was stated that the said Ramesh was not having B.E. (Horticulture) or any equivalent degree from a recognized University, which is the prescribed qualification as per G.O.Ms.No.6, School Education (VE) Department, dated 04.01.2000. The said order of the Director of School Education was challenged by the Management in W.P.No.24228 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.08.2011. Aggrieved against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the Management. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Management contended that when the said J.Ramesh was appointed by the appellant-Management on 15.10.1997, the qualification prescribed was a pass in B.Sc. Aggrieved against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the Management. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-Management contended that when the said J.Ramesh was appointed by the appellant-Management on 15.10.1997, the qualification prescribed was a pass in B.Sc. (Agriculture) for the Vocational Instructor (Agriculture-Vegetables and Fruits) and the said qualification even though was modified by G.O.Ms.No.6, School Education Department, dated 04.01.2000, a saving clause is made for the continuance of the persons appointed earlier and without noticing the said factual aspect, the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel further submitted that the Government has also created 206 posts through G.O.Ms.No.35, School Education Department dated 09.02.2007 to accommodate the persons serving as part time Vocational Instructors in various schools and the name of the said Ramesh is found in Sl.NO.92 of the Annexure to the said G.O. The said Government Order was passed based on the recommendation made by the Director of School Education, taking note of the continuous service of the said Ramesh and the said aspect was also not considered either by the Director of School Education or by the learned Single Judge, while passing the orders. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the Government Orders. 6. It is not in dispute that the said Ramesh was appointed in the appellant's Aided School on 15.10.1997 and he is also continuously working as Vocational Instructor. It is also not in dispute that the said Ramesh is having a degree in B.Sc.(Agriculture), which was the prescribed qualification on the date when he was appointed. G.O.Ms.No.6, School Education Department, dated 04.01.2000 also permits the department and Managements to continue the persons appointed earlier even though they were not having the qualification prescribed as per G.O.Ms.No.6, School Education Department, dated 04.01.2000. Considering the said facts only, the Director of School Education recommended to the Government for creation of additional posts and the name of the said teacher viz., J.Ramesh is also found in the annexure. All these aspects would only go to show that the said Ramesh is having the prescribed qualification on the date when he was appointed by the Management. The 2nd respondent and the learned Single Judge has not considered the said aspect in its proper perspective, particularly, with reference to the saving clause contained in G.O.Ms.No.6, School Education Department, dated 04.01.2000. All these aspects would only go to show that the said Ramesh is having the prescribed qualification on the date when he was appointed by the Management. The 2nd respondent and the learned Single Judge has not considered the said aspect in its proper perspective, particularly, with reference to the saving clause contained in G.O.Ms.No.6, School Education Department, dated 04.01.2000. Hence, the order of the 2nd respondent as well as the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 7. In fine, the impugned order passed by the Director of School Education dated 18.05.2009 as well as the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2011 made in W.P.No.24228 of 2009 are set aside with a direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the said J.Ramesh made in the appellant School, as prayed for in the writ petition. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks and salary payable is directed to be paid within a period of four weeks therefrom. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the above direction. No costs.