- (1.) The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant intra-Court Writ Appeal as against the order dated 04.07.2014 in W.P.No.25927 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge.
(2.) The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order on 04.07.2014 in W.P.No.25927 of 2012 (filed by the Respondent/ Petitioner) at paragraphs 6 to 8, had observed the following: "6.For ready reference, I rely upon the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19473 of 2012 dated 03.08.2012, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court has passed the following order: "In similar cases, this Court also allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.3355 of 2010 on 18.11.2010. Considering the fact that the appointment made by the petitioner is within the permissible ratio, the appointment of Mr.Prabhu as Secondary Grade Teacher is required to be approved by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to approve the appointment of Mr.Prabhu as Secondary Grade Teacher in the petitioner school, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is not in dispute that the said Prabhu was appointed by the education committee by way of resolution on 23.02.2012 and he is continuously working. Therefore, his appointment should be approved retrospectively from the date of his appointment i.e. on 24.02.2012." 7.Since the case in hand is similar to that of the case already decided by this Court and the direction issued by this Court, the writ petition is to be allowed. 8.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently the second respondent is directed to approve the appointment of Mr.R.Saravana Babu, as Secondary Grade Teacher, made by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.R.Saravana Babu was appointed by the petitioner school on 20.02.2012 and he reported to the duty on 20.02.2012 and he has been continuously working. If that be so, there is no impediment for approving his appointment. Hence, the appointment of Mr.R.Saravana Babu should be approved retrospectively from the date of his appointment i.e. on 20.02.2012 and necessary orders to be passed to this effect, as directed above. No costs."
(3.) The Learned Government Advocate for the Appellants submits that the Learned Single Judge could have seen that the preponderance of probability is sufficient for the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner seeking approval for the appointment made by the Respondent/ Petitioner, which was reserved for 'Woman Candidate'.;