Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. R. Naliappan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No. 19679 of 2011, dated 21.9.2011, wherein the appellant has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Elementary Educational Officer, Salem-7 to approve the appointment of the appellant as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 25.9.1998 as per G.O.Ms.No. 150, School Education (P1) Department, dated 2.7.2007 with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition having been dismissed, this writ appeal is filed. 3. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the fifth respondent-school is a recognized Private aided school running primary sections, which was having 19 teachers i.e. 1 Headmaster + 18 Secondary Grade Teachers. One T. Sivagami, who served as Secondary Grade Teacher, retired on 31.5.1998 and in the said retirement vacancy, the appellant was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, though she was qualified with graduation and B.Ed. The management of the school published an advertisement on 19.8.1998 in ‘Dinamalar’ Tamil Daily Newspaper calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The appellant applied through advertisement and she was selected and served in the school from 25.9.1998 based on the appointment order issued for the vacant post. Approval papers were also sent to the Department on 25.9.1998 by the Secretary of the School. However, approval was not granted, as the appellant did not possess Diploma in Teacher Education, which is the prescribed qualification for Secondary Grade Teacher as per G.O.Ms.No. 559, Educational, Science and Technology Department, dated 11.7.1995. 4. A batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the said G.O. and this Court upheld the said G.O. Against which, writ appeals were filed before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench in the decision reported in 2002 WLR 173 (Secretary & Correspondent, Uswathun Hasane Oriental (Arabic) Girls Higher Secondary School v. The State of Tamil Nadu) while upholding the Government Order, ordered to extend the concession to the teachers appointed till the judgment of the learned Single Judge by evolving a mode by the Government, the appointment of such teachers were directed to be approved. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 155, School Education Department, dated 3.10.2002 and ordered to undergo one month Child Psychology Training through DIET. 5. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was not sent for the Child Psychology Training and her appointment having not been approved, the school management did not permit the appellant to report for duty from July, 2005 without passing any order as directed by the Department. Thereafter, the appellant and similarly placed persons approached the Department and based on that, G.O.Ms.No. 150, School Education Department dated 2.7.2007 was issued enabling the appellant and 21 others to complete the Child Psychology Training for the purpose of approval of their appointments. The appellant’s name is also found at Sl.No. 22 of the annexure to the said Government Order. In spite of the said Government Order issued as early as on 2.7.2007, the appellant was not sent for the Child Psychology Training by the management on the ground that the post in which the appellant appointed was found surplus as on today and there is no vacancy in the fifth respondent-school due to fall in strength. 6. When the matter was posted for hearing on an earlier occasion, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent-school was directed to get instructions as to whether any vacancy is available in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher in the fifth respondent-school. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent-school, on instructions, submitted that there is no vacancy in the fifth respondent-school and as on today and 9 teachers are found surplus due to fall in strength in the school. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the date when the appellant was appointed, the school was having the sanctioned post. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get approval of her appointment in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench made in Writ Appeal No. 1263 of 2001, dated 22.1.2004 and on completion of training, if the Secondary Grade Teacher post is found surplus, she should be deployed in another needy school with post. The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the appellant is not pressing for salary from the date of appointment till the completion of the Child Psychology Training and the appellant was not paid salary even though she was appointed from 25.9.1998. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the appellant is not pressing for salary from the date of appointment till the completion of the Child Psychology Training and the appellant was not paid salary even though she was appointed from 25.9.1998. 8. Since the Government has shown indulgence and issued G.O.Ms.No. 150, School Education Department, dated 2.7.2007 including the name of the appellant for sending her to Child Psychology Training for the purpose of approval, the respondents are bound to send the appellant for undergoing one month Child Psychology Training. Necessary proposal is directed to be sent by the fifth respondent-school to the third respondent within a period of two weeks and on receipt of the proposal from the fifth respondent-school, the third respondent is directed to arrange for conducting the Child Psychology Training to the appellant within a period of four weeks therefrom and on completion of the Child Psychology Training, the appellant shall be absorbed in a needy school, where there are vacancies available along with excess posts in the fifth respondent-school, where the appellant has to be posted. Necessary order is directed to be passed by the third respondent to that effect within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.