certain conditions. One among the conditions was that the Managers should execute a consent letter undertaking that in future vacancies, protected teachers equal to the number of teachers, appointed to the additional division vacancies during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10, would be appointed. The 3rd respondent failed to execute the bond as required in the Government Order. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(P)No.199/2011/G.Edn dated 01.06.2011 approving the recommendations for implementation of the comprehensive teacher’s package for appointment of deployed/protected teachers. The petitioner was also included in the package and his appointment was regularised with effect from 1.6.2011. According to the petitioner, teachers similarly placed as he had approached this Court and by various judgments, this Court had directed the respondents to approve the appointment from the date of appointment by deeming that the manager has executed the bond. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 19223/2020 seeking to approve his appointment. This Court by Exhibit P3 judgment directed the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition and pursuant to the same, Ext.P4 order was passed. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P4 and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.2009 onwards deeming that the Manager has executed the
