ORDER : D. Hari Paranthaman, J. 1. Since the matter is covered by the decision dated 29.07.2010 in W.P. Nos. 4221, 4222 and 4224 of 2009 in The Secretary, The KRC ARC Girls Higher Secondary School, Muthialpet, Chennai-1 v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 10.04.2015 in W.A.(MD) No. 2 of 2015 in The Director of School Education and another v. J. Frederick Jeyakumar and another, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant by the fourth respondent by an order dated 12.06.2015 in the vacancy arose due to the retirement of one Florence Victoria on 30.04.2015. According to the petitioner, the said Florence Victoria was holding the sanctioned post and since he was appointed in the sanctioned post due to retirement, the appointment of the petitioner should have been approved and grant should be sanctioned by the respondent Government Authorities. But the proposal sent by the fourth respondent School for approval of appointment was returned by the third respondent, and the third respondent has passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2015 passed in O.Mu. No. 4565/A4/2015, stating that vacancies caused in the Aided Schools could be filled up only after the Government takes a decision regarding the same. Reliance is placed on G.O. Ms. No. 115, School Education Department, dated 30.05.2007. 4. The fourth respondent is the aided school and the same is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Therefore, the appointment to the sanctioned posts to the aided schools are to be filled as per the provisions of the said Act. Once a post was sanctioned by the competent authority in an aided school, the same shall be filled as per the provisions of the Act and the Government Orders could not prevail over the statutory provisions. The issues relating to filling up of vacancies in aided schools were put to difficulties after the ban on recruitment was imposed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001. 5. In my view the said ban is not valid for appointment in the aided schools. The ban is relating to appointment in Government Schools. No. 212, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001. 5. In my view the said ban is not valid for appointment in the aided schools. The ban is relating to appointment in Government Schools. Even the said ban is not valid to the posts of teachers, doctors and police personnel. 6. Thereafter the Government thought it fit to lift the ban and issued G.O. Ms. No. 14, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 07.02.2006. 7. Therefore, once ban was lifted, there cannot be any hindrance for appointment even in Government service. In these circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I considered the issue of appointment of watchman in an Aided Higher Secondary School, in the order dated 01.08.2012 in W.P.(MD) No. 5178 of 2007 in A. Manivannan v. State of Tamil Nadu. It is useful to extract paragraphs-11 to 15 of the said order: "11. Already this Court has held in the order dated 6/3/2009 in W.P. No. 1722 of 2009 that G.O. Ms. No. 212 (Personnel and Administrative Reforms - P) dated 29/11/2001 imposing ban on recruitment could not be applied to the aided Schools, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act. Paragraph 12 of the said order is extracted in this regard:- "No doubt G.O. Ms. No. 212 (Personnel and Administrative Reforms [P] Department dated 29/11/2001, a ban has been imposed for appointment. However, the said ban would relate only to Government employments and it has not relevance to the appointments made by the private Schools. Further the ban imposed in the said Government order had been cancelled by the subsequent Government Order namely G.O. Ms. No. 14 (Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department) dated 7/2/2006. Further more, G.O. Ms. No. 115, School Education (D 2) Department, dated 30/5/2007 does not prohibit the filling up of Lab Assistants in private Schools. Perhaps the second respondent is under the misconception that G.O. Ms. Nos. 212 and 115 prohibit the appointment in private Schools." 12. The appeal preferred against the said order in W.A. No. 267 of 2009 was rejected on 12/8/2009. 13. Hence, the reason given by the third respondent for returning the proposal cannot be sustained. 14. Likewise, the reliance placed on G.O. Ms. No. 115 in the counter affidavit cannot also be sustained, since G.O. Ms. The appeal preferred against the said order in W.A. No. 267 of 2009 was rejected on 12/8/2009. 13. Hence, the reason given by the third respondent for returning the proposal cannot be sustained. 14. Likewise, the reliance placed on G.O. Ms. No. 115 in the counter affidavit cannot also be sustained, since G.O. Ms. No. 115 was issued very much later to the appointment of the petitioner. Hence the G.O., could not be applied to the case of the petitioner. The Government letter dated 25-5-2006 and the consequential letter dated 21-8-2006 of the Director of School Education stating that the vacancies of non-teaching post in aided School shall not be filled up were quashed by this Court by various writ proceedings. I have followed those judgment in my order dated 17/7/2012 made in W.P.(MD) No. 1410 of 2007. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The third respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as watchman from the date of his appointment and to pay all monetary benefits. The said exercise has to be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 8. In my view, the petitioner herein is in a better footing since the petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant. In the judgment dated 29.07.2010 in W.P. Nos. 4221, 4222 and 4224 of 2009 in The Secretary, The KRC ARC Girls Higher Secondary School, Muthialpet, Chennai-1 v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, I held that the appointment of Library Clerk, Lab Assistant and Home Science Attender in the Higher Secondary Schools shall be considered as teaching post and the same could not be considered as non-teaching post, and hence I held that the appointment to those posts would not be covered by G.O. Ms. No. 115. It is useful to extract paragraph-31 of the said judgment as under: "31. After G.O. Ms. No. 115, the school was permitted to fill the vacancy of Junior Assistant. In fact, there was some restriction in the matter of appointment of Junior Assistant as per G.O. Ms. No. 115. But there is no restriction as to the appointment of Library Clerk, Lab Assistant and Home Science Attender in Higher Secondary Schools. After G.O. Ms. No. 115, the school was permitted to fill the vacancy of Junior Assistant. In fact, there was some restriction in the matter of appointment of Junior Assistant as per G.O. Ms. No. 115. But there is no restriction as to the appointment of Library Clerk, Lab Assistant and Home Science Attender in Higher Secondary Schools. In my considered view those posts are very essential like teacher posts. Though they are classified as non-teaching posts, the students cannot be taught in higher secondary schools without theses posts. Without a Lab Assistant and without a Home Science Attender, it is difficult for the school to impart education in science. Likewise, the Library Clerk is the only person who handles the entire Library and no other person is provided in the Library. I am stated that in Central Board schools there are more persons provided to handle Library as per the CBSE regulations. There are 1400 students studying in the petitioner's school and the school also has a Library for a long time and the post was sanctioned from 1966. Hence, the respondents cannot now state that they could not approve the above three posts. Since, as stated above, G.O. Ms. No. 115 is not referred to in the impugned orders, the fourth respondent cannot improve by advancing an argument now to sustain the impugned order by importing G.O. Ms. No. 115 to sustain the same." 9. In fact, a similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 10.04.2015 in W.A.(MD) No. 2 of 2015 in The Director of School Education and another v. J. Frederick Jeyakumar and another. That case relates to appointment of Library Clerk on 01.04.2005 when there was a ban on recruitment as stated above. In spite of the same, the Division Bench directed the authorities to approve the appointment and the Division Bench rejected the plea of the school authorities relating to G.O. Ms. No. 115. It is useful to extract paragraph-10 of the said judgment as under: "10. The contention of the first respondent that G.O. (Ms) No. 115, School Education (D2) Department, dated 30.05.2007, is not applicable to the appointment of the first respondent as Library Clerk, has considerable force. No. 115. It is useful to extract paragraph-10 of the said judgment as under: "10. The contention of the first respondent that G.O. (Ms) No. 115, School Education (D2) Department, dated 30.05.2007, is not applicable to the appointment of the first respondent as Library Clerk, has considerable force. The appellants themselves have admitted in paragraph 5 of the counter filed in the writ petition that G.O.(Ms) No. 115, School Education (D2) Department, dated 30.05.2007, is not applicable to the post of Library Clerk. The appellants have not rejected the proposal, for approval of appointment of the first respondent, on the ground of ban order or take a stand that the appointment of the first respondent can be approved only from lifting the ban order, dated 07.02.2006. Therefore, the appellants cannot be allowed to improve their case in appeal, by relying on various Judgments of this Court, including the Judgment of this Court, dated 24.03.2014, made in Review Application (MD) No. 101 of 2013, to which, one of us [V.M. VELUMANI, J.] was a party, wherein it has been held that the appointment of non-teaching staff should be approved only from the date of lifting of the ban order, i.e., 07.02.2006." 10. In view of the same, the fourth respondent school is directed to submit the proposal again to the third respondent and on submission of such proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner, the third respondent is directed to approve the same within a period of four weeks thereafter, from the date of his appointment and to pay salary from the date of appointment. 11. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.