The consistent view of the Division Benches held that the Teacher Eligibility Test is not necessary for teachers in aided minority institutions, and conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court were considered in reaching the decision.

P.D. Audikesavalu, J.

The Appellant, who has completed diploma in Teacher Education, was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the school of the Third Respondent, which is an aided minority institution, by order dated 30.10.2010 in a sanctioned vacancy.

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. No. 181, School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011, in pursuance of Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, that the teaches who passed the Teacher Eligibility Test were alone made eligible to become teacher. It is also stated therein that in view of the specific provisions of that enactment, those who do not possess the qualification of pass in Teacher Eligibility Test at the time of its commencement on 01.04.2010, would have to acquire that minimum qualification within a period of 5 years. When the appointment of the Appellant by the school of the Third Respondent was sent to the First Respondent for approval for the purpose of receiving aid, the First Respondent by proceedings in O. Mu. No. 924/A1/2012 dated 27.09.2013 held that since the Appellant did not possess the requirement of pass in Teacher Eligibility Test, her appointment could not be approved. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant filed W.P. (MD) No. 13618 of 2014 before this Court challenging the said order of the First Respondent refusing to accept the appointment of the Appellant and for further direction directing the Third Respondent to re-submit the proposal to the First Respondent and for directing the First Respondent to grant approval to the appointment of the Appellant as Secondary Grade Teacher in the school of the Third Respondent with effect from 01.11.2010.

3. In the meanwhile, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trusts -vs- Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 1] held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, does not apply to aided and unaided minority educational institutions. However, a Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashwini Thanappan -vs- Director of Education [(2014) 8 SCC 272] after referring to the submission made by the Counsel in that case held that the Judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trusts -vs- Union of India [(2014) 8 SCC 1] is inconsistent to the Judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.A. Inamdar -vs- State of Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537], and deemed it appropriate to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions in the matter. When the Writ Petition was taken up before the Writ Court along with a batch of similar cases, the Writ Court by order dated 14.07.2016 disposed the same with following directions:-

“The Petitioners shall be given salary in the course of their employment within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and no steps to remove them from service shall be taken. However, it is made clear that this order is subject to the final outcome of the case pending before the Supreme Court in Aswini Thanappan -vs- Director of Education and another (2014) 8 SCC 272. It is further made clear that the Petitioners shall not claim any equity on account of this order, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.”

The Appellant has preferred this intra-Court Appeal aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Learned Judge to the extent of not granting approval to her appointment by the First Respondent.

4. Shortly after the disposal of the Writ Petition which is the subject matter of this appeal, a Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai -vs- S. Jeyalakshmi [(2016) 5 CTC 639], held in paragraph nos. 39 and 40, as follows:-

“39. In the decision relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in Ashwini Thanappan -vs- Director of Education [(2014) 8 SCC 272], the issue that arose for consider