JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the entire records connected with impugned order passed by the 4th Respondent vide Na.Ka.No.0046/As3/2020, dated 09.11.2020 and quash the same and consequently, directing the 3rd Respondent to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as Record Clerk, w.e.f. 25.10.2019, with all consequential monetary benefits.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the entire records connected with impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide Na.Ka.No.0046/As3/2020, dated 09.11.2020 and quash the same and consequently, directing the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Record Clerk, w.e.f. 25.10.2019, with all consequential monetary benefits. 2. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent made a representation dated 12.10.2018 to the 2nd respondent through the 4th respondent, requesting for approval to fill up the vacant post of Record Clerk due to promotion of one A.R.Rajkumar, Record Clerk. After a lapse of eight months, the 2nd respondent has accepted the said request and by the Proceedings dated Nil.06.2019, granted permission to fill up the post of Record Clerk. 3. Based on the said permission, the 5th respondent-School has issued the paper advertisement on 26.09.2019 and simultaneously notified the vacancy to the District Employment Exchange on 03.10.2019. By the letter dated 15.10.2019, the Employment Exchange furnished the list of candidates for the post of Record Clerk. The petitioner has applied for the post of Record Clerk and School Committee has conducted an interview on 25.10.2019. Thereafter, the 5th respondent-School has served the appointment order to the petitioner on 25.10.2019 and he joined duty on 25.10.2019. Thereafter, the 5th respondent-School submitted a proposal dated 31.12.2019 to the 2nd respondent, requesting for approval of his appointment as Record Clerk in the said School. 4. In the meanwhile, the Vellore District was trifurcated as Vellore, Thirupattur and Ranipet. In view of the trifurcation of Districts, the 3rd respondent is Competent Authority and hence, the proposal was forwarded to the 3rd respondent. As per rule 15 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973, no prior permission is required to fill up the non-teaching post in the aided non-minority/minority school as held by this Court in the catena of decisions. As per rule 15 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973, no prior permission is required to fill up the non-teaching post in the aided non-minority/minority school as held by this Court in the catena of decisions. However, the 5th respondent-School after obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent, filled up the said post by following all due procedures. Therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents to approve the appointment. However, the 4th respondent by the impugned Proceedings dated 09.11.2020, has rejected the approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.238 dated 13.11.2018, the 5th respondent-School is not eligible to fill up the post of Record Clerk, due to shortfall of student strength as per the inspection report of the 4th respondent dated 03.11.2020. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD).Nos.10794 and 10795 of 2019 and the same was stayed by this Court by an order dated 13.04.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the 5th respondent-School, requesting for approval of his appointment. Thereafter, the 5th respondent-School has also resubmitted the proposal to the 4th respondent and the same is pending. Therefore, he has filed the instant writ petition before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has complied all the requirements as per the norms, therefore, there is no impediment to consider the request of the petitioner for approval of his appointment to the post of Record Clerk in the 5th respondent/School. 6. In Paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, wherein it has been specifically stated there is violation of the rules and regulations in the appointment of the petitioner, which has been stated as follows:- (i) The maximum age limit for appointment in Government Service is only 32-35. But the petitioner has crossed the above age limit. (ii) Vacancy Notification was not published in two dailies as per G.O.Ms.No.44, Labour and Employment Department dated 11.03.2015 which was reiterated in the letter of the District Employment Officer dated 15.10.2019. (iii) Paper advertisement was given on 26.09.2019, Employment letter was received on15.10.2019, interview was held on 25.10.2019 and appointment was made on the same date. No sufficient time was given between the date of notification and the last date for receipt of application and the date of interview. (iii) Paper advertisement was given on 26.09.2019, Employment letter was received on15.10.2019, interview was held on 25.10.2019 and appointment was made on the same date. No sufficient time was given between the date of notification and the last date for receipt of application and the date of interview. (iv) The total number of private applicants and the employment candidates appeared for the interview and the qualification of all the interviewed persons has not been furnished along with the proposal. (v) Interview was held on 25.10.2019, but the appointment order was issued on 24.10.2019. (vi) The genuineness of the Educational qualification of the petitioner has not been verified before issuing the order of appointment. (vii) There are three basic service employees. Their Educational qualification has not been furnished so as to justify the Certificate issued by the 5th respondent for the non availability of suitable persons for promotion. 7. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid reasons have been stated only in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, but the same has not been communicated to the 5th respondent-School nor to the petitioner. Further submitted that the said application has been resubmitted by the petitioner for the reason as stated in the rejection order. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will submit his explanation for the aforesaid defects pointed out in Paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent as well as the communication received from the 4th respondent. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that if any resubmitted proposal is pending before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent will issue notice to the petitioner by pointing out all the defects as required to comply the Rules and Regulations of the appointment of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-School also undertakes that the defects pointed out by the 4th respondent will be complied by the 5th respondent-School and would resubmit the proposal to the 4th respondent for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. 11. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-School also undertakes that the defects pointed out by the 4th respondent will be complied by the 5th respondent-School and would resubmit the proposal to the 4th respondent for approval of the appointment of the petitioner. 11. Considering the above said submissions made by the parties and recording the undertakings of the learned counsel for the appearing for the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent-School, this Court is inclined to pass orders as follows:- (i) The 5th respondent-School is directed to resubmit the proposal to the 4th respondent along with their explanation, as the defects pointed out in Paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and also any other defects pointed out in the earlier rejection order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) If any such documents required by the 5th respondent-School from the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to furnish the same before the 5th respondent-School for complying the aforesaid defects and for resubmitting the proposal for his appointment. (iii) If any such proposal has been received by the 4th respondent within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as early as possible, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. (iv) It is made clear that the 5th respondent has to comply all the rules and regulations for granting approval of the appointment of the petitioner. 12. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.