3.The fourth respondent, after due process of selection, has appointed the petitioner on 06.01.2015 and sent the proposal for approving the appointment of the petitioner to the third respondent. However, the third respondent has not passed any order. On the other hand, he has returned the proposal, raising certain queries. The fourth respondent has resubmitted the proposal, after rectifying the defects. No order was passed on the proposal. Therefore, the petitioner made representations and made enquiries personally in the office of the third respondent. The petitioner was informed that the order on the proposal could not be passed, due to the pendency of the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.20882 of 2014 filed with regard to the dispute in the management. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, by the order dated 04.04.2017, recording the compromise arrived at between the parties. Even after, no order was passed by the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed W.P.(MD) No.13442 of 2018, for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil). This Court, by the order dated 12.03.2019, directed the third respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, observing that pendency of the Writ Petition cannot be a ground for rejecting the approval of the appointment. Thereafter, the third respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 07.05.2019, has returned the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent, raising new objections. Hence, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.