JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1195/A2/10 dated 04.01.2011, quash the same further direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 01.01.2006 and to pay the arrears from 04.01.2011 to 01.05.2013 with all attendant and consequential benefits.) 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 01.04.2011 and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 01.04.2006 and to pay arrears from 04.01.2011 to 01.05.2013. 2.The writ petitioners states that one Mr.A.Isidore, who was holding the post of Junior Assistant in the 4th respondent St.Marys Teacher Training Institute, retired from service on 31.03.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the retirement vacancy, the writ petitioner was appointed on regular basis with effect from 01.04.2003. However, the appointment of the writ petitioner was not approved during the relevant point of time. In the year 2001, the Government imposed ban for appointments and the said ban was in force for a period of five years till the year 2006. The petitioner states that the appointment of the writ petitioner was approved from 17.03.2008 and thereafter, the petitioner was drawing the regular time scale of pay. However, the third respondent through order dated 04.01.2011 cancelled the approval of appointment granted in favour of the writ petitioner. The said order of cancellation is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that again the writ petitioner was issued with fresh appointment order with effect from 02.05.2013 and served in the Institute for about two years. Therefore, the services of the petitioner is to be regularized withe effect from 01.01.2006. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent Institution made a submission that the Institute itself was closed in the year 2017 and the petitioner was already relieved from service and all the benefits due to him were settled by the Management. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the said contention by stating that salary alone was paid and other benefits are not settled. 6. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the said contention by stating that salary alone was paid and other benefits are not settled. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 made a submission that the Government has not passed any order to fill up the non-teaching staff vacant post in the Government aided Teacher Training Institute. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training approved the appointment of the writ petitioner wrongly by oversight from 01.06.2007 in proceedings dated 17.03.2008. Subsequently the approval of the appointment order was cancelled by the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training in proceedings dated 12.11.2010 since no orders have been passed by the Government to fill up the non-teaching staff in the aided Teacher Training Institute. The Government had permitted to fill up the non-teaching vacant post in the Government aided school vide G.O.Ms.No.40, School Education Department dated 14.03.2013. Hence, the non-teaching vacant post should be filled up only on 14.03.2013, i.e. the date of the Government Order. Hence, the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in St.Marys Teacher Training Institute would not be approved from 01.01.2006. 7. The cancellation of the approval of appointment issued by the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training dated 12.11.2010 was not challenged by the writ petitioner during the relevant point of time. The petitioner was again appointed in the year 2013 pursuant to the Government Order and served for about two years and for the said period, salary has already been settled in favour of the writ petitioner. This being the factum the petitioner has not complied with the minimum period of service for grant of pension under the Pension Rules. That apart, the petitioner was served as Junior Assistant in the aided Teacher Training Institute and his appointment was approved and thereafter cancelled on account of the Government policy and only after the clearance by the Government, he was appointed in the year 2013. This being the factum, the petitioner is not entitled for the regularization of service from 01.01.2006 onwards. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. This being the factum, the petitioner is not entitled for the regularization of service from 01.01.2006 onwards. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. That apart, the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.14958 of 2015 to direct the third respondent to issue posting order to the writ petitioner as Junior Assistant in any other State Government aided Teacher Training Institute was also dismissed as infructuous by this Court on 01.03.2021. No costs.