O R D E R

Heard Mr.S.Chella Pandian, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st to 3rd respondents, and Mr.Suresh, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner would submit that the Hon’ble Court in the order under Review had only entitled the petitioner for the salary that is to be paid as determined by the Division Bench of this Court. He would submit that the Division Bench had not disturbed the earlier finding wherein this Court had directed to consider the petitioner’s case and transfer the post of Craft Instructor from the 4th respondent school to any other school, and also to sympathetically consider the payment of salary. Pursuant to the same, the respondents had passed an order rejecting the transfer of the said post, which came to be challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition before this Court, the same was dismissed and was taken on by a way of an intra-Court Appeal, wherein the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the intra-Court Appeal, finding that the orders made in the Contempt Petition had become final and binding on the educational authorities, held that the dismissal of the appeal will not in any manner prejudice the appellant, who is the petitioner in the Review Petition, to pursue the relief granted in his favour in the Contempt Petition vide order dated 15.07.2009. Hence, he would submit that his right to seek approval of his appointment in the 4th respondent school would still subsist and therefore, the order passed holding that the matter had come to rest in respect of approval is an error apparent on the face of the restricting and resisting it only to the payment of the salary as directed by the Division Bench is a consequence to the erroneous direction and the relief sought for by the petitioner to approve the petitioner’s appointment would have to be reconsidered by this Court.

3. He would also rely upon the affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and submit that the post could also be sanctioned in the 4th respondent school as the 4th respondent had sympathetically undertaken to surrender the post of Craft Instructor (Agriculture) on retirement of the Review Petitioner, who would also superannuate within a short period as he would only have six years of service left.

4. Mr.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent school would also stand by the affidavit that had been filed in the present Review Petition.

5. However, countering his arguments, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st to 3rd respondents would vehemently contend that the person holding the post before the petitioner, who was appointed in a post of the Vocational Instructor was transferred to the 4th respondent school along with the teacher as it was found that such post, which was in another aided school, has become surplus. The 4th respondent school was not entitled for Vocational Instructor and the same was only made on a humanitarian consideration. He would further submit that the post was not a sanctioned post in the 4th respondent school. On the retirement of the incumbent, the post held then would have to be surrendered to the department. Without doing so, the 4th respondent had appointed the petitioner to the school and this Court in W.P. No. 1870 of 2005 had directed to consider the claim. As there was a delay in consideration, a Contempt Petition came to be filed and in the interregnum, an order of rejection also came to be passed. The said order of rejection was challenged in the W.P. No. 137/2005 and the said writ petition along with the contempt petition were taken up and were disposed of by this Court by a common order on 15.07.2009 by directing the educational authorities to sympathetically consider the case of the petitioner and transfer the post of the Craft Instructor from the 4th respondent school to any nearby school and also to sympathetically consider t