ORDER :

The lis on hand has been instituted to quash G.O.(Ms).No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, on the file of the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 11.04.2016 in Na.Ka.No.537/A4/2016 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner Mrs. Nancy Rani working as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in Auxilium Girls Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore-632 006 w.e.f.05.06.2012 with all service benefits.

2. The petitioner states that she is now working as BT Assistant at Auxilium Girls’ Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore/5th respondent. The 5th respondent Secondary School is a Minority Aided School. The petitioner was appointed pursuant to the vacancy aroused due to the transfer of one Smt.Sr.Alphonsa on 04.06.2012. The order of appointment issued to the writ petitioner reveals that she was selected and appointed as BT Assistant (Tamil) in the 5th respondent/Secondary School against the vacancy caused due to the transfer of Smt.Sr.Alphonsa.

3. The petitioner states that she is fully qualified to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The 5th respondent School submitted a proposal to the District Educational Officer/4th respondent to approve the appointment of the writ petitioner as BT Assistant (Tamil) with effect from 05.06.2012. The 5th respondent enclosed all the particulars including Educational certificates of the writ petitioner. However, the 4th respondent issued the impugned order in proceedings dated 11.04.2016 rejecting the appointment of the writ petitioner on the ground that even in respect of appointments made in Minority Aided Schools, the Teacher appointed must possess the requisite qualifications of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) as per the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE).

4. The petitioner states that as a result of rejection of the appointment as BT Assistant (Tamil), she is working without salary from 05.06.2012.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in respect of Minority Aided Schools, they are protected under the Constitutional provisions and therefore, prescription of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) cannot be insisted on the Minorities Institutions for appointment of Teachers. It is contended that right of administration and appointment vest with the Minority School Management and such a Fundamental Right cannot be taken away by prescribing the qualification of the TET by NCTE. Therefore, the competent authorities of the School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu committed an error in not approving the appointment of the writ petitioner, despite the fact that she possess the other Educational qualifications except the TET.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 6 and others Vs. S.Jeyalakshmi & another, reported in [2016] (4) L.W.841, the Division Bench made the following observations:

“50. In the light of the above discussed cases, it is clear that the State can impose reasonable regulations on the minority institutions for protecting the larger interest of the State and the nation, but it should not destroy the minority character of the institutions. It is also not in dispute that the management of the minority Schools should be given freedom in the appointments of Teachers and there should not be any external controlling agency and the procedure for selection of Teachers should be evolved by the Management itself.

51. Now, we shall look at the intention of the Government while issuing G.O.Ms. No. 181, School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011. The intention is to ensure the quality of education imparted to the children and to maintain uniformity in teaching. In other words, G.O.Ms. No. 181 has