JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide Na.Ka.No.4276/A2/ 2011 dated 02.3.2012 and quash the same in so far as denial of approval from the date of initial appointment i.e. 02.6.1997 and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner w.e.f 02.6.1997 as Secondary Grade Teacher with all consequential benefits.) 1.The order passed by the District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai in proceedings dated 02.03.2012 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Admittedly, at the time of appointment, the writ petitioner was not fully qualified to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. However the petitioner acquired the requisite qualification subsequently. However, the Division Bench of this Court in WA.(MD).Nos.74 of 2015 & 957 of 2016 dated 21.03.2018, granted liberty to the similarly placed persons like the petitioner to approach the Government for redressal and the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Division Bench are extracted hereunder: ''7. Pursuant to which, G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 3.10.2002 was issued. The said Government Order provided for imparting one month child psychology training for all those Teachers, who possessed B.Ed qualification and appointed in Secondary Grade vacancies, which appointment was held to be not sustainable by the Division Bench. As the Teachers does not posses the requisite qualification, the Government, while granting such concession imposed a condition, which appears to have been unequivocally accepted by the Teachers. Otherwise they would have lost the chance of getting absorbed into service. The question would be as to whether the Teachers would be entitled to get salary from the date of first appointment, i.e., the order of irregular appointment and as to whether they would be entitled for salary in the Secondary Grade scale from the date of completion of child psychology training. There can be no controversy on the aspect as the Government order clearly stipulates as to from what date the Secondary Grade scale of pay is liable to be paid to those Teachers including the respondents. This is contained in Clause 3(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 8. Another condition, which would be relevant for the present case is clause 3(viii) of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 9. This is contained in Clause 3(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 8. Another condition, which would be relevant for the present case is clause 3(viii) of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002, which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 9. The management of various schools, which had appointed Teachers like the respondents had challenged the validity of G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002 and the matter travelled upto the Division Bench and the Division Bench in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu and others v. Pallivasal Primary School reported in 2004-2-L.W.591 upheld G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 03.10.2002. The only relief granted to the Teachers, who were appointed in Secondary Grade Vacancies, is the grant of salaries, were by restraining the department from effecting any recovery. Therefore, paragraph No.3(7) of G.O.Ms.No.155 alone was set aside and rest of the Government Order was upheld in the said decision. It was subsequently ordered that approval/confirmation of the appointment can be only after the date of completion of the child psychology training. Further the Division Bench observed that the past service I.e prior service child psychology training shall count. After the decision rendered in the case of Pallivasal has attained finality, the respondent/writ petitioners seek for salary for the earlier period as well as for other monitory benefits such as increment, selection grade and special grade, etc. We have given our careful consideration. We find in paragraph No.7 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench has noted the various condition in G.O.Ms.No.155 and held that the respondent therein would be entitled to relief as granted to similarly placed teachers. If that is so, the ultimate conclusion would have been to grant benefit from the date of completion of the child psychology training. However in the penaltimate portion of the order her salary has also been included. In our considered view, the direction to pay salary does not corroborate with the observation made by the Division Bench. In the decision in the case Suganthi Victoria. The Government had admitted that at best it can be taken as a decision pertaining to the said case on its factual matrix and that cannot be taken as a precedent. In our considered view, the direction to pay salary does not corroborate with the observation made by the Division Bench. In the decision in the case Suganthi Victoria. The Government had admitted that at best it can be taken as a decision pertaining to the said case on its factual matrix and that cannot be taken as a precedent. In the case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Rao Bahadur AKD Dharmaraja Girls Higher Secondary School in W.A.(MD)No.3442 of 2002 dated 08.09.2006, the Division Bench, relying on the decision of the case reported in 2002 Writ l.r. 173, held that the salary can be paid only after completion of the child psychology training and accordingly, allowed the Government appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners relied on certain other orders passed by various single benches including one of us (TSSJ) and on perusal of the same, we find that in none of those decisions, the full affect of G.O.Ms.No.155 and the conditions therein have been thoroughly examined. Apart from that, the decision in the case of Pallivasal Primary School has not been specifically noted. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that those decisions cannot be referred to advance the case of the respondents/writ petitioners, though some of them have attained finality. Needless to state that if there has been a wrong decision, it cannot be treated as precedent. 11. In the light of the above reasoning, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Writ Court directing disbursement of salary from the date of original appointment, cannot be sustained, in the light of explicit condition imposed in G.O.Ms.No.155, which was upheld by the Division Bench in a Public Interest Litigation. Thus, for the above reasons, the writ appeals filed by the department has to be allowed. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though there were about 3000 Teachers who were appointed in such improper manner as of now 300 Teachers would be entitled to monitory benefits and as remaining persons were already paid and they were protected by the Division Bench order from the effect of recovery. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent should be permitted to approach the Government by way of representation. 13. We make no positive observation on this request. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent should be permitted to approach the Government by way of representation. 13. We make no positive observation on this request. But it is always open to the respondents/writ petitioners to approach the Government, if they so desire. For the above reasons, the writ appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 and C.M.P.(MD) No.5749 of 2016 are closed. 3. In view of the judgment cited supra, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Government for redressal of her grievances by way of representation and if any such representation is filed, it is left open to the Government to consider the same and pass orders. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.