JUDGMENT : Viju Abraham, J. Since common issue is involved in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. WP(C) No.4145 of 2022 2. The 1 st petitioner was appointed as a part-time menial from 02.12.2019 in the higher secondary section of SNV Higher Secondary School, Panayara, Varkala, as per Ext.P1. The approval of appointment was rejected by Ext.P2 by the 3rd respondent, the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, for the reason that there is no part-time menial post in the school. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as a part-time menial from 02.12.2019 as per Ext.P4 in the higher secondary section of the very same school, and the approval was rejected as per Ext.P5. Aggrieved by the rejection in the case of both the petitioners, a revision was filed by the Manager as Exts.P3 and P6. Petitioners would contend that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in rejecting the request for approval of appointment is that there is no post of part-time menial sanctioned in the higher secondary section of the school by the Government. It is contended that the said reason stated by the authorities is without any basis inasmuch as Rule 4 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules provides staff pattern for Aided Higher Secondary Schools, providing for method of appointment, and it includes appointment of the part-time menial by way of direct recruitment. It is submitted that revision petitions were considered and were rejected as per Ext.P10 for the reason that no post of part- time menial has been created in the Higher Secondary School, as the Government has not taken any final decision based on the judgment of this Court in Vivek Nair v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (3) KLT 65 ] Petitioners relying on the judgment in State of Kerala & Another v. Saji T.M. & Another [ 2009 (3) KHC 610 ] submit that it is the exclusive discretion of the Director to sanction the post, having regard to the requirement, and the said power vested in the Director to sanction a post in the school is a power coupled with a duty. Petitioners would submit that the appeal filed challenging the judgment in Saji T.M. ’s case cited supra was dismissed by the Apex Court by the order dated 30.07.2010. Petitioners would submit that the appeal filed challenging the judgment in Saji T.M. ’s case cited supra was dismissed by the Apex Court by the order dated 30.07.2010. Petitioners also relies on Ext.P8 judgment in W.A. No.1465 of 2013, wherein it is held that sanctioning of a post of LD Clerk is the statutory function of the Director as provided in Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII KER , and that it is for the Director to sanction a post and for that matter, the Director need not await or obey the dictates of the Government. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P11 judgment in WA No.745 of 2018 and connected cases and submits that the said judgment has become final inasmuch as the appeal filed against the same has been dismissed by the Apex Court as per Ext.P12 order. Petitioners also rely on the judgment in Vivek Nair v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (3) KLT 65 ] and contend that the Government is obliged to create the post, which has already been legally sanctioned as per the provisions of the statute itself, which was subsequently proposed and recommended by the Director of Higher Secondary Education. WP(C) No.23221 of 2022 3. In this case, petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P11 order, contending that the same has been issued contrary to the findings in Ext.P1(b) and P7 judgments. Petitioners would contend that they have entered aided school service as Librarians with effect from 09.01.2008, 16.07.2001, 13.07.2010, 01.01.2002, 08.10.2009, 07.09.2009, and 07.09.2009 respectively in the Higher Secondary School belonging to respondent Nos. 6 to 12. It is submitted that the petitioners are fully qualified for being appointed as Librarians. The request for approval of the appointment has been rejected on the ground that the post of Librarian was not created by the Government. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that similar issues were considered by this Court and similar orders objecting the request for approval of appointment were interfered with, holding that it is the prerogative of the 2nd respondent, Director, to sanction the post, and the Government has no authority to interfere in the statutory domain of the Director. Petitioners submit that Ext.P1 and P1(a), (writ petitions filed by the 1st petitioner herein), are judgments passed in similar line. Petitioners submit that Ext.P1 and P1(a), (writ petitions filed by the 1st petitioner herein), are judgments passed in similar line. Petitioners would submit that Ext.P1(a) judgment was rendered on the basis of the decision taken by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.2065 of 2008, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1(b), wherein it was specifically held that Government has got no role in the matter of sanctioning of various posts including the post of Librarian ( Saji T.M. ’s case cited supra). The learned Counsel would submit that in respect of the petitioners 6 and 7, this Court has considered the issue in WP(C) No.26510 of 2010 and directed the 2nd respondent Director to look into the issue and pass appropriate orders as per Ext.P1(c) judgment. 4. Petitioners would further submit that the 2nd respondent thereafter passed orders rejecting the claim, holding that it is not possible to sanction the post of Librarian at that time as it involves additional financial commitment to the Government, and further orders in this matter will be issued at a later point of time pursuant to the creation of the post by the Government. Petitioners would submit that in case of a similarly situated Librarian, a post of Librarian Grade III was sanctioned in St.Peter’s Higher Secondary School, Kolenchery, enabling one of the appointee, Saji T.M., to get his appointment approved, as evident from Ext.P2. While so, this Court has considered a similar issue in WP(C) No.29618 of 2005 as per Ext.P3 judgment and based on the same Ext.P4 Government order was issued. As per Ext.P3 judgment a direction was issued to the State Government to take a pragmatic view in the matter and directed that the Secretary to Government in the General Education Department would prepare the scheme in consultation with Finance Department and place it before the Cabinet for approval within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and directed the petitioners therein to continue in service till a decision is taken by the Government as directed. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P4 proceedings were issued by the Government approving the scheme for creation of posts of Lower Division Clerk, full time and part time Menial and Librarian Grade-IV in Government/Aided Higher Secondary Schools, wherein it is decided that one post each of Lower Division Clerk and full time/part time menial for every Higher Secondary School will be made in the first place. One post of Librarian Grade-IV will be created in Higher Secondary Schools which are having a library as per the criteria in Higher Secondary Schools, a library as per the criteria of the State Library Council, consisting of at least 10,000 books in the second phase, and that the modalities including the filling up of vacancies is to be decided in consultation with the Finance Department. 5. While so, the 3rd petitioner approached this Court filing WP(C) No.31334 of 2010, and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment directing to consider the case of the 3rd petitioner in the light of Ext.P4 order. But the same was rejected by Ext.P6, stating that the post of Librarian has not been so far created and the same will be done only during the 2nd phase as per Ext.P4 Government order. The above order was challenged filing WP(C) No.28285 of 2017 and it was disposed of by Ext.P7 common judgment, wherein it is held that in Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII KER it has been specifically provided that service of every Aided Higher Secondary School shall consist of all or any of the various categories of post which the Director shall sanction and since various categories of posts have already been created by the Government as per the statutory provision and what is required further is sanctioning of the post by the Director and that there is no necessity for further creation of post by the Government. It was further held that there can be no dispute regarding the requirement of a Librarian in the Higher Secondary School as the statute itself has recognised such a post. It is further held that there is no provision in the that a sanction could be withheld, citing financial reasons. Therefore, the Director is bound to sanction the post of Librarian in the Higher Secondary School, and further directed the Director to sanction the post after verifying the requirement. It is further held that there is no provision in the that a sanction could be withheld, citing financial reasons. Therefore, the Director is bound to sanction the post of Librarian in the Higher Secondary School, and further directed the Director to sanction the post after verifying the requirement. Without considering the said direction, Exts.P8 to P8(f) orders are issued rejecting the claim of the petitioners without considering the direction issued by in Ext.P7 order. It was held that the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Librarian Grade-IV cannot be considered, and one HSST Junior is entrusted with the charge of the Librarian. 6. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner challenged Exts.P8 to P8(f) by filing WP(C) No.15896 of 2019 which was allowed as per Ext.P9 judgment setting aside the impugned orders with a consequential direction to the competent authority in the Government to immediately issue orders granting the post which are now being claimed by the petitioners in these cases in various Higher Secondary Schools which shall be done within a period of one month. Without considering the said direction, the Government has passed Ext.P11 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner, creating one post of Librarian in KPMHSS, Poothotta, making it clear that posts are sanctioned for a period of five years temporarily and that the appointment shall also be on a contract basis. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. WP(C) No.22095 of 2022 7. In the above writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Higher Secondary section of the school with effect from 01.01.2010. The approval of the appointment was declined, stating that the Government has not yet created the post. Petitioner submitted that the said decision to reject the claim goes against the judgment in Saji T.M. ‘s case cited supra. Thereupon, the manager filed WP(C) No.6878 of 2010 assailing the rejection order, which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment setting aside the impugned order and directing the 2nd respondent Director to take a decision in the matter in the light of the judgment in WA No.2065 of 2008. Petitioner submits that a similar issue was considered by this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment. Petitioner submits that a similar issue was considered by this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment. Petitioner would further submit that in Ext.P8 judgment, Thomas K.L. v. State of Kerala and Others [2013 KLT 3670], it has been held that no orders are required from the Government for sanctioning the post. Later on, Ext.P9 order was issued by the Government creating the post of Clerk, full-time or part-time Menial and Librarian Grade-IV in Higher Secondary Schools. As per Ext.P8, one post of clerk was granted in the petitioner’s school, but the petitioner’s appointment has not been approved, and the salary was not paid. Thereupon, petitioner approached this Court filing WP(C) No.2414 of 2015 which was disposed of as per Ext.P10 judgment directing the Government to take up the issue of sanction of non-teaching post as approved by the Director and pass orders within a period of three months taking into consideration the recommendation of the Regional Deputy Director as well as the order passed by the Director of Higher Secondary Education. A perusal of Ext.P10 judgment reveals that in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, it is stated that the Regional Deputy Director has granted approval for the creation of the post, but concurrence of the Government is essential, since the matter involves a financial commitment. Challenging Ext.P10 appeal was filed, and the same was also dismissed as per Ext.P11 order. SLP was also filed, which also ended up in dismissal. Petitioner submits that in the light of Exts.P4, P6, P7, P10 and P11 judgment, he is entitled to get approval and salary from Ext.P1 order of appointment. Thereupon, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.13385 of 2021 and Ext.P12 interim order was passed, wherein the submission of the learned Government Pleader that earnest steps are being taken to implement the judgment is seen recorded. While so, Ext.P13 order was issued declining the grant of one post in the petitioner’s school. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 8. While so, Ext.P13 order was issued declining the grant of one post in the petitioner’s school. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Essential contention raised by the respondent Government is that direction was issued by this Court to the Director of General Education to consider the requirement of Librarian in the school, and the Director after verifying the requirement was directed to sanction the post on being satisfied with the requirement within a period of two months, and approve the appointment of the petitioners from such date which is deemed to be granted. The said judgment empowered the Director to satisfy himself with the requirement of sanctioning the post and to take a decision in the matter. In WA No.745 of 2018 and connected cases, this Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 30.11.2017 in WP(C) No.2414 of 2015, and in the said judgment the Division Bench took note of the fact that based on the direction issued by the Division Bench, the Government issued order dated 17.08.2015 and based on the same directions have been issued to the Director, Higher Secondary Education to furnish separate proposal for creation of post of Lower Division Clerk, Librarian Grade-IV, full time/part time Menial in Government/Aided Higher Secondary Schools. In implementation of the direction in WP(C) No.2414 of 2015, the Director General of Education has furnished a proposal to the Government as per Ext.R1(a) proceedings and also a revised proposal as Ext.R1(b). Considering Exts.R1(a) and R1(b), Government issued Ext.P6 as directed by this Court in WP(C) No.2414 of 2015, and as per the proposal, the Director found that only one school i.e. KPMS Higher Secondary School, Poothotta has the required infrastructure for the library in the school and all the remaining 17 schools are not having any infrastucture. As such, the proposal issued by the Director was approved by the Government as per Ext.P6. Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) proposals are not under challenge in the present writ petition. As such, the proposal issued by the Director was approved by the Government as per Ext.P6. Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) proposals are not under challenge in the present writ petition. Petitioners have absolutely no legal right or fundamental right for a direction to the Government to create a post of Librarian or Clerk or full-time Menial in the school, which is purely an administrative matter linked with the academic activities of the students, and the post of Librarian can be sanctioned only if the conditions prescribed by the Director General of Education have been fulfilled. It is further stated that the order of the Apex Court dated 15.03.2010 in SLP filed challenging the judgment in Saji T.M. ’s case, the Apex Court, while declining interference, has made it clear that the Director of Education, while considering the question of granting sanction to the post of Librarian, will also be entitled to take into consideration any question of financial commitment. It is further submitted that the creation of posts involves a financial commitment. Likewise, the post of clerk and full-time menial is created based on the student strength of the school of the petitioners, and if it is not satisfied, they are not entitled to get any additional post of clerk and full-time menial. It is further submitted that the Director has issued Ext.R1(c) guidelines by specifying the facilities to be provided in a school library to create the post of Librarian, and such facilities were not available in the KPMHS, Poothotta. It is further submitted that as part of the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Government has appointed a committee under the leadership of one K.M. Khader to study and submit a report regarding the school education from classes 1 to 12. Accordingly, a recommendation was given to unify and create a Directorate of General Education by merging the Directorate of Public Instruction, the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education and the Directorate of VHSS and create a post of Director of General Education in the cadre of IAS. Based on the said recommendation, it is submitted that posts under the school have to be refixed in view of the merger of the Directorate into one. Based on the said recommendation, it is submitted that posts under the school have to be refixed in view of the merger of the Directorate into one. Consequently, on the issuance of the Government order dated 30.05.2019, the three Directorates under the General Education Department were merged into one by creating a post temporarily for a period of five years, and the post could be filled up on a contract basis. In view of the subsequent development, including the merger of three Directorates, the proposal was revised by the Director and the revised proposal was accepted by the Government for creating a post on a temporary basis for a period of five years and to make appointments on a contract basis against that post for a tenure of five years. It is further submitted that the approval was declined, taking into consideration the financial implications also. 9. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein it is reiterated that, as per Rule 1 of Chapter 24A KER , if there are students less than 1499, one post of clerk can be sanctioned, and in case where the student strength is above 1500, two clerical posts can be sanctioned. Likewise, if the student's strength is below 699, one post of a full-time menial can be sanctioned, and if the strength is above 700 and below 1399, two posts of full-time menial can be sanctioned. In the event the student's strength is more than 1400, three full-time menial posts can be sanctioned. As per the proposal submitted by the Director in Ext.R1(a), no post is proposed by the Director to be sanctioned in the school in which the petitioners were working. In the proposal, the Director has specifically stated that only on satisfaction of the number of student criteria, a post can be sanctioned in the school. It is further submitted that Government has issued order dated 31.05.2019, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R1(b), whereby it was ordered that the existing Directorate of Public Instructions, Director of Higher Secondary Education and Directorate of Vocational Higher Secondary Schools to be merged as one and the Director of General Education is to be formed, and after the issuance of Ext.R1(d) clauses 1 to 12 will be under the Principal and entire class 1 to 12 will be taken together for all purposes. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.R1(e) order dated 30.06.2019 amending the Kerala Education Rules . The was further amended as per Ext.R1(f) Government order, and as per Ext.R1(g) Government order dated 04.09.2019 it is submitted that after unification of LP, UP, High School and Higher Secondary School under the Director of General Education only one school exist from standard 1 to 12 and therefore the student strength of classes 1 to 12 is considered in terms of Rule 1 of Chapter 14A . Therefore, the entire student strength of the school from standard 1 to 12 has to be taken for the sanction of the post. It is further submitted that Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII of provides that categories of posts might be sanctioned by the Director. Further relying on Rule 10 of the Rules of Business Part 1 Government of Kerala, it is submitted that no Department shall without previous consultation with the Finance Department authorise any orders which either immediately or by their repercussions will affect the finances of the State etc. and therefore sanction of the post which has financial implication can be done only after the consultation of the Finance Department. Therefore, prior sanction of the Finance Department as well as the Council of Ministers is required for sanctioning of the post. It is only thereafter that a post can be created by the Director. In the light of the above, it is submitted that the Government is competent to issue orders as evident from Ext.P10 and no interference is called for. 10. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 11. WPC No. 4145 of 2022 relates to the appointment to the post of part-time menial. Originally, the approval was declined, stating that no post had been sanctioned in the Higher Secondary Section. Now the order under challenge in this writ petition is the earlier order declining approval and also Ext P10 order passed by the Government declining approval of appointment holding that post has not been created and appropriate decision will be taken in this regard, since no policy decision has been taken in the matter and as per the report of the Director, the financial commitment to the Government will be more than 122 Crores. Chapter XXXII of KER deals with the method of appointment and qualification of teachers and nonteaching staff in aided Higher Secondary Schools. Chapter XXXII of KER deals with the method of appointment and qualification of teachers and nonteaching staff in aided Higher Secondary Schools. Rule 3 provides for various categories of posts as the director may sanction, which include the post of librarian, lower division clerk and part-time menial. Rule 4 deals with the method of appointment. In Ext P7 judgment in Saji T.M case cited supra, the Court held that the power for sanctioning a post is solely on the Director and the Government has absolutely no role in sanctioning a post in the Higher Secondary wing. The said stand was reiterated in Ext P8 judgment also. This Court in Ext P13 judgment in Vivek Nair case cited supra while considering the grant of approval of appointment of non-teaching staff in various Higher Secondary Schools and creation of post in that regard held that the Government is obliged to create the post which is already legally sanctioned by the provisions of the statute itself, i.e. Chapter XXXII and subsequently proposed by the Director. 12. In WPC No. 22095 of 2022, the issue raised is regarding the approval of appointment to the post of clerk. The claim was rejected by Ext P13, whereby the post was not sanctioned for want of sufficient student strength. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue regarding approval of the appointment of the petitioner was considered in Ext P4 judgment in WPC No. 6878 of 2010, and the Court set aside the impugned order declining approval and directed reconsideration of the matter. Based on Ext P4, the matter was reconsidered and again rejected. Thereafter, the said order was challenged and as per Ext P6 judgment in WPC No. 22023 of 2014, placing reliance on Ext P7 judgment dated 05.09.2013, directed the revision to be considered, taking into consideration Ext P7 judgment. Ext P7 judgment provided in WPC No. 5835 of 2013 was issued considering the claim of the petitioner in WPC No. 22095 of 2022 and other connected cases, and taking into consideration the plight of the employees, including the petitioner in this writ petition and directed the Government to take a pragmatic view in the matter and to finalise a scheme after getting approval of the Government. It is seen that on the basis of the direction in Ext P7 judgment, Ext P9 proceedings have been issued by the Government creating posts of lower division clerk, full-time part-time menial, librarian in a phased manner and directed the Director to submit proposals in this regard. The Division Bench of this Court, as per Ext P8 judgment, held that financial liability of the State cannot be a reason for not implementing the mandate of the Act and Rules. Since no action was taken, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court again, and by Ext P10 judgment, taking note of the fact that approval had already been granted by the Director for the creation of the posts, directed the Government to consider the issue of sanctioning the post as approved by the Director. The said judgment was appealed against, and as per Ext P11 the same was dismissed. SLP filed against the same was also dismissed. In spite of the same, the Government have declined sanctioning of the post as per Ext P13. It is to be noted that the claim has been rejected as per Ext P13 without looking into the judgments inter parte and especially Ext P9 decision taken by the Government based on Ext P7 judgment. 13. WPC No. 23221 of 2022 relates to the appointment of librarians in the Higher Secondary Section, wherein the petitioner relies on Ext P1, P1(a) judgments and P1(b) judgment in Saji. T.M. ’s case cited supra and also P1(c) judgment. Petitioner submits that the said issue was considered by this Court as per Ext P3 judgment (P7 judgment relied on by the petitioner in WPC No. 22095 of 2022) which led to the issuance of Ext P4 order whereby the Government granted approval to the scheme formulated by the Director for creation of the post whereupon the third petitioner approached this Court filing WPC No. 31334 of 2010 which was disposed of as per Ext P5 judgment directing the 2nd respondent, Director to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of Ext P4 order and thereafter Ext P6 order was issued finding that the appointment made to the post of librarian is against law as the Government has not created any post of librarian till date and the claim can be considered only after creation of the same. The said order was challenged by filing WPC No. 28285 of 2017, and the same was disposed of as per Ext P7 judgment wherein it was held as follows: “5. The statutory posts are created by the statute itself. There is no necessity for further creation of the post by the Government unless such posts are not mentioned in the statute. Therefore, it is clear what the Director has to consider is the requirement of a Librarian in the School. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the requirement of Librarian in the Higher Secondary School as statute itself recognize such post. The question in such circumstance is whether the Director can withhold sanction citing financial reasons. Nowhere in the KER it is stated that a sanction to be granted under statutory provision can be withheld citing financial reasons. The power to grant sanction emanates from statutory provision. Therefore, that statutory provision alone need to be considered in regard to the sanction. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the Director is bound to sanction such Librarian posts on being satisfied with the requirement of such Librarian in the school. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The Director, after verifying the requirement, shall sanction the posts on being satisfied with the requirements within a period of two months and approve the appointment of the petitioners from such date it is deemed to be granted.” While so, Ext P8 series of orders were issued without considering the directions in Ext P7 judgment stating that the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered and the charge of librarian will be given to one Higher Secondary School teacher (junior). The same was challenged in a writ petition, which was disposed of as per Ext P9 judgment ( Vivek Nair v. State of Kerala , 2021 (3) KLT 65 ), setting aside the impugned orders directing the competent authority of the Government to immediately issue orders granting the post which has not been claimed by the petitioners in various Higher Secondary Schools. Without considering any of the said directions which have become final, Ext P11 order was issued creating various posts of nonteaching staff, including librarian temporarily for a period of 5 years on a contract basis. Without considering any of the said directions which have become final, Ext P11 order was issued creating various posts of nonteaching staff, including librarian temporarily for a period of 5 years on a contract basis. Petitioner would submit that the Government is bound by Rule 3 of Chapter XXXII KER and also the law laid down by this Court in Ext P1(b), P7, P9 and P10 judgments and other binding judgments. I find considerable force in the said contention raised by the petitioner since the issue has been concluded as per the above quoted judgment and this Court has affirmed by various judgments as stated supra that post of teaching and non-teaching staff have been created by the statutory rule in Chapter XXXII and what remains is only sanctioning of the post by the 2nd respondent director and that the creation of the post as done in Ext P11 order for a temporary period of 5 years is without looking into the earlier directions issued by this Court in the various judgment which has been cited supra. This Court is of the view that the issue has to be reconsidered by the Government in the light of the concluded judgment and especially on the basis of Ext P4 order dated 17.8.2015 produced in WPC No. 23221 of 2022 which was issued in compliance with the direction issued in Ext P3 judgment in WPC No. 29618 of 2005 and connected cases since the orders impugned herein have been passed overlooking the same. Further, it is to be seen that financial constraints of the Government have also been stated as a reason for not sanctioning the post. This Court in Amina v. State of Kerala , 2004 KHC 108 , though rendered in the context of aided colleges, has held that the Government cannot avoid statutory liability for payment of teachers on the ground of financial constraints. The Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Rajni Vali and Others , 2000 KHC 942 has held that the administration cannot shrink its responsibility of ensuring proper education in Schools and Colleges on the plea of lack of resources. Further, similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment in Thomas K.L. v. State of Kerala and Others , 2013 KHC 3670 . Further, similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment in Thomas K.L. v. State of Kerala and Others , 2013 KHC 3670 . Therefore, I am of the view that the financial liability to be incurred by the Government in the creation of the post cannot be a reason for denying the same. Accordingly, orders impugned in this writ petition, so far as it declined approval of the appointment of the petitioners, are set aside. There will be a consequential direction to the 1st respondent Government to reconsider the matter in the light of the observation made above, and also in the light of the judgments/Government orders cited supra and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Petitioners will be free to submit their notes of arguments, producing all the documents/judgments relied on by them in support of their contention, which shall be duly adverted to by the 1 st respondent Government while taking a decision as directed above. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.