Judgment :- V.M. Velumani, J. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 15.04.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.14735/2012. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent school is an aided non-minority middle school. The post of Headmaster is in the cadre of B.T.Assistant. One S.Kumarasamy working as Headmaster of the School retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011. From 01.6.2011, the post of Headmaster became vacant. The respondent School made a representation to the department seeking permission to fill up the post. The third appellant, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1920/A4/2011, dated 06.07.2011, instructed the respondent to fill up the vacancy by direct recruitment through Employment Exchange. The District Employment Officer, Karur, informed that there are no eligible candidates for appointment as Middle School Headmaster and issued a Non-availability Certificate and directed the respondent, by proceedings in A2/3536/2011, dated 19.08.2011, to fill up the post by direct recruitment or by advertisement. 3. The respondent issued a paper publication in August 2012. In response to the advertisement, applications were received for the post of Head Master, Middle School. But, no person with 5 years requisite teaching experience was available. 4. One Tmt.K.Sujatha with two years teaching experience in recognized school and 8 years experience as Lecturer in a recognized college was selected and appointed to the post of Headmaster in the respondent school with effect from 02.09.2011 by order dated 29.08.2011. A proposal for approval of the appointment of Tmt.Sujatha as Headmaster in the Middle School was forwarded to the Education Department enclosing relevant documents. The second appellant returned the proposal on the ground that the said Tmt.Sujatha did not possess requisite teaching experience and there are no Government Orders to relax the same. The respondent again resubmitted the proposal and made detailed representation, dated 05.11.2011, by referring to G.O.Ms.No.116, School Education Department, dated 14.07.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education Department, dated 05.07.2011, by which Government Orders, there can be relaxation of teaching experience by Government Order, when no eligible candidates with requisite experience is available either from Employment Exchange or even in the open market. The fourth appellant forwarded the proposal to the third appellant. However, the third appellant, again by proceedings dated 07.01.2012, rejected the claim. According to the third appellant, teaching experience rendered in the School alone can be counted and teaching experience rendered in the College cannot be counted. The fourth appellant forwarded the proposal to the third appellant. However, the third appellant, again by proceedings dated 07.01.2012, rejected the claim. According to the third appellant, teaching experience rendered in the School alone can be counted and teaching experience rendered in the College cannot be counted. The respondent made a representation, dated 09.2.2012, to the second appellant by way of an appeal. However, the first appellant rejected the appeal on the ground of shortage of teaching experience. 5. The fourth appellant gave instructions to the first appellant to relieve Tmt.K.Sujatha from the post of Headmaster of Middle School with instructions that she should not be allowed to continue in service. Therefore, the respondent has filed W.P.(MD)No.14735 of 2012 to quash the order of the appellants on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education Department dated 05.07.2011, shortage of teaching experience can be relaxed by the first appellant and the said Government Order was not considered by the first appellant. Further, this Court in similar cases has directed the authorities to approve the appointment of a person as Middle School Headmaster, even though the said person did not possess requisite five years teaching experience, but, made it clear that the said person will be entitled to promotion to the post of Headmaster only if he acquires five years of teaching experience. The appellants in the counter affidavit denied all the allegations made by the first respondent. 6. The learned Judge considered the materials on record and the earlier order of this Court, dated 25.04.2012, made in W.P.No.9668 of 2012 and also W.P.No.10832 of 2013, allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to give the same relief to Tmt.K.Sujatha also. Against the said order dated 15.4.2014, the appellants have come up with the present appeal. 7. According to the appellants, as per rule 15(b) of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulation Rules 1974, 5 years teaching experience as a Secondary Grade Teacher is mandatory for the post of Middle School Head Master. Tmt.Sujatha appointed by respondent admittedly did not have such experience. G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department dated 05.07.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 14.07.2006 have no application in the case of respondent, as they were special cases. Unless the Government grants specific exemption under Section 20(3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Act, 1973, the respondent is not entitled to any approval for appointment of Tmt.Sujatha. G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department dated 05.07.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 14.07.2006 have no application in the case of respondent, as they were special cases. Unless the Government grants specific exemption under Section 20(3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulation Act, 1973, the respondent is not entitled to any approval for appointment of Tmt.Sujatha. The first appellant is the authority to grant exemption and in the present case, no exemption was granted by the first appellant. The orders made in W.P.No.9668 of 2012 and W.P.No.10832 of 2013 are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the teacher in that case subsequently, acquired requisite 5 years experience whereas in the present case even today, the said Sujatha has not acquired the requisite 5 years teaching experience. 8. For the above reasons, the appellants prayed for allowing the writ appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed in the present writ petition. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department dated 05.07.2011, the appellants ought to have granted exemption as no eligible candidate was available for appointment through Employment Exchange, as well as by direct recruitment by advertisement. Further, the two orders referred to in the order impugned in the writ appeal are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 10. Material and record discloses that the respondent/writ petitioner has been appointed, as a Headmaster of Raja Aided Middle School, Vedhichipalayam and Post, Karur. When approval for appointment was sought for, the Director of Elementary Educational Officer, Karur District, rejected the same, which was confirmed by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, which lead to filing of a writ petition to quash the proceedings issued by the second respondent in O.Mu.No.03812/H4/2012, dated 26.06.2012, confirming the orders passed by the third respondent in O.Mu.No.4034/Aa4/2011, dated 07.01.2012 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of K.Sujatha, in the post of Middle School Headmaster, with effect from 02.09.2011, with all consequential, attendant and service benefits, including arrears of salary with interest. 11. The decision relied on by the Writ Court are extracted hereunder:- 5. In similar circumstances, this Court in Aided Middle School rep. 11. The decision relied on by the Writ Court are extracted hereunder:- 5. In similar circumstances, this Court in Aided Middle School rep. by the Secretary, Poonthottam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P.No.9668 of 2012, decided on 25.04.2012], has dealt with the appointment of the Middle School Head Master and held as follows: "6. In the said judgment, it is ordered that if a person is appointed as Middle School Headmaster without experience and if he continued in the post for more than five years, the said person's appointment can be given approval as B.T.Assistant and on completion of five years experience, the said person can be given Middle School Headmaster's scale of pay. 7. Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the second respondent to approve the appointment of the said G.Kumar from 17.12.2002 as B.T.Assisant for five years and on completion of five years as B.T.Assistant, i.e. from 17.12.2007, his appointment shall be approved in the post of Middle School Head Master. The second respondent is directed to pass necessary orders in the light of the above direction, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs." 7. In the judgment in Tmt.J.Metildaviji v. The Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P.No.10832 of 2013, decided on 21.11.2013], this Court had an occasion to deal with an identical issue and held as follows: "8. In view of the judgment in W.A.No.1408 of 2010, dated 08.12.2011 and also G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 20.01.2011, by which, 18 persons were already granted exception from five years teaching experience for appointment of Headmasters, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to give approval with a condition that the petitioner shall draw the salary payable to the B.T.Assistant for five years and thereafter, she is entitled to salary as a Middle School Headmistress. It is also made clear that the approval would be from the date of initial appointment. The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Government is directed to pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks." 12. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Writ Court, the Government, has preferred Writ Appeal. 13. The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Government is directed to pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks." 12. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Writ Court, the Government, has preferred Writ Appeal. 13. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/respondents conceded that the respondent/writ petitioner may work in the post of B.T.Assistant, but however, shall not claim salary for the post of Headmaster, until she acquired five years of teaching experience, as B.T.Assistant. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner submitted that on completion of five years of teaching experience, a direction can be issued to the Management, to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. 15. Recording the above said submission, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 15.04.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.14375 of 2012 is set aside. The respondent shall work as B.T.Assistant and she shall not claim salary for the post of Headmaster. Management also shall not claim salary for the post of Headmaster. After completion of five years in the post of B.T.Assistant, a direction is issued to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post, in accordance with the statutory provisions. 16. Perusal of the impugned order made in W.P.(MD).No.14375 of 2012 shows that approval of appointment of Smt.Sujata by the respondent/petitioner, as Headmaster of the School has been declined only on the ground that the said Sujatha had not fulfilled the statutory eligibility, namely, five years of teaching experience in the post of B.T.Assistant, for being appointed as Headmaster of Middle School. Excepting the above, there is no other reason for not approving the appointment of said Sujatha appointed by the respondent/petitioner. Thus, it is not the case of the appellants/official respondents that said Sujatha appointed by the respondent/petitioner did not possess B.T. Assistant qualification. It is not open to the appellants to contend that the said Sujatha has not even qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant. Thus, it is not the case of the appellants/official respondents that said Sujatha appointed by the respondent/petitioner did not possess B.T. Assistant qualification. It is not open to the appellants to contend that the said Sujatha has not even qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant. The appellants are directed to approve the appointment of the Sujatha appointed by the respondent/petitioner, as B.T.Assistant, subject to the requirement under law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.