The requirement of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is not applicable to teachers appointed in private minority educational institutions, as these institutions are protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and cannot be governed by executive orders that conflict with their administrative rights.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Sivalingam For M/s.C.S.Associates For respondent(s): Mrs. Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader R1 to R4 ORDER This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To direct respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as secondary grade teacher in the 5th respondent school from the date of appointment i.e., on 20.06.2011 and all other benefits by complying orders of this Court in W.P.No.11249 of 2014 dated 12.10.2017 by considering the representation made by the petitioner dated

11.02.2026.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a secondary grade teacher on

20.06.2011, in the 5^th respondent School. The management forwarded the proposal to the 3^rd respondent for approval of his appointment on 23.06.2011. The 3^rd respondent returned the proposal with some queries. After rectifying these queries the management resubmitted the proposal but the respondents have not passed any order. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.26061 of 2011 seeking mandamus directing the respondents to approve his appointment as a secondary grade teacher in the 5^th respondent School, by considering the proposal submitted by them on 23.06.2011, along with petition for injunction. This Court was pleased to admit the writ petition and granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from terminating the petitioner from service.

3. The petitioner would further submit that in the above writ petition, the respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the proposal for approval of his appointment has been rejected. Thereafter, the management furnished a copy of the rejection order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the 4^th respondent. The writ petition was therefore disposed with a liberty to challenge the rejection order.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11249 of

2014 and this Court was pleased to order notice. While so, the respondents had not permitted him to sign in regular attendance from 15.04.2013 and instructed him to sign in a separate attendance. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.11249 of 2014, seeking interim direction, directing the respondents to give temporary approval of the appointment and to pay salary in the cadre of secondary grade teacher and continue to pay.

5. This Court was pleased to pass an order on 23.09.2016 directing the respondents to give temporary approval to the petitioner as secondary grade teacher in the 5^th respondent school pending disposal of the writ petition and pay salary within a period of six weeks from the date of order.

6. Since the respondents have not complied with the order of this Court, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.520 of 2017 in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.P.No.11249 of 2014. Thereafter the order was complied with and the petitioner was continuously working in the same post. The writ petition came up for final hearing on 12.10.2017 and this Court was pleased to allow the same.

7. However, even thereafter the respondents have not given approval to the petitioner in the post of secondary grade teacher. Therefore, he filed contempt petition in Cont.P.No.1247 of 2018 in W.P.No.11249 of 2014. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 11.06.2018 the respondents had produced the order dated 31.07.2017, giving temporary approval from 20.06.2011 to 12.04.2013. Recording the same, the contempt petition was closed.

8. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents requesting them to give approval from the date of appointment and pay salary with service benefits. T