only by rules. We are concerned with the expression "conditions laid down by the Government" occurring in Section 11. The word "prescribed" is not seen in that expression, though the word "prescribed" is used when it speaks of the qualifications. Therefore, it cannot be said that 'conditions' could be laid down only by Rules. Section 11speaks of "subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government". If the conditions could be laid down only by Rules, it was sufficient to say "subject to the rules laid down by the Government". This is a clear indication that 'conditions' could be laid down even by executive orders. 22. I am also not inclined to accept the contention raised by the Petitioners that though the 'condition' under Section 11 could be one relating to appointment, the Government Order in question imposes condition for approving appointment already made. Clause v. of the Government Order relaxes the conditions and states that for approving the appointments made in the additional divisions, the condition stipulated therein shall be followed. The Government Order also says: "In spite of the Government Orders, several Managers had appointed teachers and non-teaching staff in additional division vacancies". Conditions were laid down in the Government Orders issued earlier. Those Government Orders were seen violated by some of the Managers. Still, as a concession, certain conditions are laid down for approval of those illegal/irregular appointments. Appointments could be made by the Managers only subject to the rules and conditions laid down by the Government An appointment becomes fruitful only on approval of the appointment. I do not find any force in the contention that the conditions in the Government Order relate only to 'approval' and not to 'appointments'.

- 23. For the aforesaid reasons, I reject the aforesaid contention raised by the Petitioners.

Point No. 2: 24. Another ground on which the Petitioners challenge the Government Order is the following: There are three categories of Managers vis-a-vis the Government Order: (1) The Managers who had made appointments during the period of ban; (2) Managers who had honoured the ban, even though the sanctioned strength of students permitted appointment of teachers as per Rules; and (3) Minority managements coming under the aforesaid two categories. Even those Managers who honoured the ban cannot now make appointment of teachers of their choice, in view of Clauses (v) and (vi) of the Government Order. There cannot be any retrospective appointment. Thus, the Managers who honoured the ban stand to lose and those who violated the ban stand on a better footing, going by the Government Order in question. 25. The argument, on a first look, appears to be attractive. But if Clauses (v) and (vi) of the GO. are carefully considered, it can be seen that the argument is unsustainable. Clause (v) of the GO. stipulates that the Managers who made appointments in the additional divisions during 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 should execute an agreement to the effect that they will appoint protected teachers/non teaching staff "equal to such appointees in all the arising vacancies in the schools from 2010-11 onwards". Clause (vi) contemplates a situation after making such appointments of protected teachers. The vacancies that arise as additional division vacancies in future should be filled up "in the order of protected teacher and