JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceeds issued by the third respondent Joint Director of Collegiate Education in A.Thi.Nu.No.4461/A4/2014 dated 11.12.2014 quash the same and further direct him to approve forthwith the appointment of 21 teaching staffs (Name list annexed) in the petitioner's college and disburse the grant-in-aid towards their salary and allowances with effect from the respective dates of their appointment. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the third respondent dated 11.12.2014, whereby, the approval of appointing of 21 teaching staffs at the petitioner's College was rejected on the reason that the prior permission from the Director of Collegiate Education, was not obtained before filling up the said posts. 5. The issue involved in this case as to whether such prior approval is necessary for filling up the vacant posts in a private aided College is no more res integra, in view of the fact that the said issue has already been considered and decided by various decisions of this Court holding that no such permission to fill up the vacancy arising out of sanctioned posts is required. The decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Ravichandran -vs- State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Chennai and others reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 641 and the earlier decision by the learned Single Judge of this Court (as he then was ) in Dr. S. Sukumaran -vs- State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Higher Education, Fort. St. George, Chennai and others reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 670 would show that no such permission is required. 6. Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 fairly conceded to the said position. 7. Accordingly, by following the above said orders, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. St. George, Chennai and others reported in (2012) 5 MLJ 670 would show that no such permission is required. 6. Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 fairly conceded to the said position. 7. Accordingly, by following the above said orders, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner-College is directed to re-submit their proposal to the third respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such proposal the third respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.