The judgment established that G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011, cannot be made applicable to Minority Educational Institutions, based on the judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust, and directed the approval of the petitioner's appointment and release of her salary.

1. This Writ of Mandamus has been filed, to direct the 3rd respondent herein to approve forthwith the appointment of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 5th respondent school since 01.06.2015 onwards with salary and other attendant benefits without insisting upon the qualification of pass in Teacher Eligibility Test.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents 1 to 4. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. The 5th respondent is a recognised and aided minority educational institution; one post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in the 5th respondent school fell vacant due to retirement of the then incumbent; in that vacancy, the 5th respondent school appointed the petitioner and till date, she continues to work in the school as B.T. Assistant (Science); the school submitted a proposal to the fourth respondent requesting to approve the petitioner's appointment as B.T. Assistant (Science) from 01.06.2015 and to disburse grant- in-aid towards her salary; the third respondent by the order dated 29.06.2015, returned the proposal, stating that the document relating to the passing of TET by the petitioner, should be enclosed for approval of her appointment. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Placing heavy reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2014 (4) MLJ 486 (SC), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that when the Apex Court has given an authoritative pronouncement, making it clear that Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 Act, insofar as it is made applicable to minority schools referred in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires of the Constitution, approval for the appointments made by the minority schools, ought not to have been refused on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, would fairly submit that as per Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, which states that any person possessing minimum qualification as laid down by an academic authority authorised by the Central Government by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as teacher, National Council for Teacher Education (in short, ''the Council'') is the academic authority appointed by the Government of India. The Council for Teacher Education has issued a Notification, dated 23.08.2010, prescribing the Teacher Eligibility Test (in short, ''TET'') as minimum educational qualification for appointment of Teachers in schools. In terms of the recommendation and the Notification issued by the Council, the Government of Tamil Nadu have also issued G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, making it clear that TET shall be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Council and in view of the said G.O., the teachers, who passed the TET alone, were made eligible to become Teacher.

6. He has further submitted that the issue as to whether the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 would be applicable to a minority institution, is pending consideration before the Supreme Court in Ashwini Thanappan vs. Director of Education and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 272. Further, following the abovesaid reference order, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also, in W.A.No.1299 of 2015, has passed an order dated 14.09.2015, directing the Educational authorities to pay only the salary with a further direction not to remove the concerned teacher till the issue under Reference is decided.

7. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract below paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the orde