Judgment 1. Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 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 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with his rejection order passed by him in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.1652/A2/2014 dated 23.12.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his case for approval based on the records furnished to the second respondent in the light of the proceedings of the first respondent in Ni.Mu.No.3921/Aa2/2014 dated --08.2014 and thereby disburse the arrears of salary with effect from his initial appointment i.e. on 03.01.2005. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the vacant post caused due to the retirement of the Secondary Grade Teacher, namely, Perumal, who retired on 31.05.2000 and the post became vacant with effect from 01.06.2000. Since the post was a sanctioned one, the first respondent by his proceedings, dated 08.07.2004, directed the School to fill up the vacancy and in result, he was appointed by the Secretary on 01.01.2005, appointing him with effect from 03.01.2005. The School Committee also passed a resolution and based on the appointment order, he joined duty on 03.01.2005. 5. According to the petitioner, he is holding the post without any adverse report from the date of appointment. Even though he was appointed in the sanctioned post, his post was not approved as on date. He further stated that believing the words of the Secretary that the post will be approved, he continued to work there without any emoluments. In the meantime, the petitioner has also made a representation to the first respondent through the second respondent on 10.12.2014, seeking for approval of his appointment which was rejected by the second respondent on 23.12.2014. 6. Aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated 23.12.2014, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner. 7. 6. Aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, dated 23.12.2014, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner. 7. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the proceedings duly signed by the first respondent dated 02.09.2014, which is enclosed in the typed set of papers, to contend that since the other two persons' employment have been approved, his case also has to be considered on the same line. 8. Per contra, Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has not produced/furnished necessary details required by them. He has also submitted that the petitioner has not come within the norms prescribed in the proceedings of the first respondent which is annexed in the typed set of papers. He has also fairly conceded that the case of the petitioner will be produces considered by the Department, provided the petitioner produces the details required by the second respondent in the light of the letter dated 23.12.2014. 9. In reply to the above, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all the documents, as required by the respondent were already produced. However, the petitioner's case has not been considered positively so far. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the vacant post. The main contention in this case is that the post was not approved and even though the petitioner stated that he has produced all the documents as required by the respondents, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order ought not to have been passed by the second respondent, in case the petitioner had already produced the documents. Therefore, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the event of the petitioner once again providing necessary documents as mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2014 and also pass fresh orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law. Therefore, I direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the event of the petitioner once again providing necessary documents as mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2014 and also pass fresh orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law. With regard to the proceedings of the first respondent annexed in page No.31 of the typed set of papers, it is for the petitioner to convince the authorities that his claim/request squarely falls within the purview of the proceedings mentioned supra and in case, such assertion of the petitioner is true, it is open to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner. This Court makes it very clear that there is no specific direction that the proceedings attached in page No.31 of the typed set of papers, automatically apply to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing in person to the petitioner. It is also open to the petitioner to submit additional written submissions, if he desires. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.