In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was against a non-existent unaided SGT post; the 6th respondent-School had appointed the petitioner without there being any unaided post, and were paying salaries from their own funds; the government issued G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 20.12.1998 prescribing the recruitment procedure; however no proposals were submitted by the 6th respondent-School intimating the appointment of the petitioner; the Regional Joint Director of School Education, by his proceedings dated 27.05.1997, had sanctioned three unaided posts of SGTs for the 5th respondent school, and had directed them to fill up the said posts by following the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994; the 5th respondent had advertised the said three vacancies, along with four aided posts, inviting applications from eligible candidates; in response thereto the petitioner applied, and appeared for the written test, but did not qualify in the written test; the petitioner has been working against a non-existent and nonsanctioned SGT post, for which the 6th respondent-School alone was responsible; the three posts of school assistants arose due to the promotion and retirement of incumbents which were required to be filled up following the procedure in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, or by promoting qualified aided SGTs whose appointments were approved by the Department as per rules; the petitioner has no right for absorption against the aided SGT post since his initial appointment was against a non-existing SGT post,
