JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 07.12.2020 passed in W.P. No. 18090 of 2014.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred the instant writ appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge refusing to issue a direction to the respondents to approve his appointment as Graduate Assistant with effect from 01.06.2002 by upgrading the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as per G.O.Ms. No. 79, School Education (U2) Department, dated 14.06.2002 with all monetary and consequential benefits and compute the services of the writ petitioner from 17.01.2001 to 31.05.2006 for pensionary benefits.

2. The fifth respondent is a minority aided school. The writ petitioner was appointed in the vacancy, which arose due to the resignation of one Ms. Srividya. The said order of appointment was issued on 11.01.2001 by the Correspondent of the School in his proceedings Na. Ka. No. 471/2001, in the existing permanent vacancy. A proposal was also sent for approval on 08.03.2001 to the third respondent. As per G.O.Ms. No. 559, dated 11.07.1995, there was a ban on appointing higher qualified teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers. Thus, the proposal sent by the School was returned. In the meanwhile, G.O.Ms. No. 125, 12.11.2003 was issued for designating the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as Junior B.T. Assistant post, of which, the writ petitioner’s appointment was approved with effect from 01.02.2004, instead of the approval with effect from 01.06.2002. The writ petitioner, therefore, sent a representation to the third respondent through the School on 30.10.2010 requesting to upgrade the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as B.T. Assistant with effect from 01.06.2002 with all monetary benefits. As there was no response, the petitioner filed in W.P. (MD) No. 902 of 2012 before the Madurai Bench of this Court and obtained a direction to the second respondent to consider his representation. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order dated 22.03.2013 was passed by the second respondent, which was put to challenge in W.P. No. 18090 of 2014, wherein, the writ Court refused to set aside the order of the second respondent, though permitted the writ petitioner to make a fresh representation to the competent authority and issued a direction to the authorities to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders, according to the eligibility of the writ petitioner.

3. Before the writ Court, the writ petitioner had placed reliance on G.O.Ms. No. 99, School Education Department, dated 27.06.2006, G.O.Ms. No. 100, dated 27.06.2006 and G.O.Ms. No. 125, School Education (X2) Department, dated 12.11.2003. The said Government Orders deal with the recruitment of teachers during the ban on recruitment was in vogue in the State.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the papers.

5. The facts are not disputed. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and he sought to be upgraded as B.T. Assistant from 01.06.2001 and the respondents ought to have approved his appointment, as Graduate Assistant with effect from 01.06.2002 by upgrading the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as per G.O.Ms. No. 79, School Education Department dated 14.06.2002 with all the attendant monetary benefits. G.O.Ms. No. 79 was issued for appointment of Middle Grade Graduate Teachers with B.Ed. Qualification in lieu of Secondary Grade Teachers in classes 6, 7 and 8 standards. The Government, in order to improve the standard of education, issued the said G.O. with certain conditions. A reading of the said G.O. makes it very clear that the same would come into effect only from 01.06.2002, but the petitioner, who has been appointed in the year 2001 and whose appointment was approved in the year 2004, bases his claim on the above Government Order to seek benefit from 01.06.2002.

6. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that though the pet