4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointments made in respect of the non teaching staff covering under these writ petitions, had, in fact, been made only in sanctioned non teaching posts available with the petitioner's school. All these appointments had been made in accordance with the Private Schools Regulation Act as well as the Rules governing the service conditions of the non teaching staff. On appointment separate proposals had been sent by the petitioner's school to the 4th respondent on 26.05.2016, who is the approving authority for such appointments. However, such proposals sent by the petitioner's school are still pending consideration before the respondents, especially, the 4th respondent office. In view of the long pendency of such proposals, the petitioner school is affected because, all these appointments, since have been made in the petitioner's school in permanent vacancies, unless their appointments are approved by the respondents, the service benefits to those appointees cannot be granted. In view of the same, the petitioner's school having no option approached this Court.
