Judgment : This writ petition has been preferred by the Headmaster of the T.C.K. Higher Secondary School, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in A.T.M. 5529/B4/ 87 dated 7. 87 and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to approve the appointment of G.Salaath, as Post Graduate Assistant from the date of appointment i.e., 12. 1986 with salary and all benefits and privileges attendant thereto in so far as the petitioner’s school is concerned. 2.. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner institution is minority institution established and being administered by Malayalam Speaking Nair community for the benefit of Malayalam Speaking Nair Community children. It has also been declared as a linguistic minority educational institution coming under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India in O.S.No.158 of 1982 on the file of the IXth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Miss.G.Salanth, a post-graduate teacher was appointed as Post-Gradu-ate Assistant in Economics on 12. 1986 in an approved and sanctioned Post Graduate Assistant Teacher’s Post. The appointment orders with records were sent to the District Educational Officer at Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District for approval. In the proceedings dated 7. 1987 in A.T.Mu.No.5529/ B4/87, the approval was refused on the ground that there was no prior approval before appointment. The petitioner-institution is exempted from the purview of Rules 15(7) (8) (a) (i) and (ii), framed under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above relief. 3.. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prior approval was not necessary contemplated under Rules 15(4) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. In support of the said contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in W.Proost v. State of Bihar and others, A.I.R. 1969 S. C. 465. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the provisions of Sec.48-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960, after its amendment. The said Section is as follows: “College established and administered by a minority entitled to make appointments etc. with approval of the Commission and the Syndicate. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the provisions of Sec.48-B of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960, after its amendment. The said Section is as follows: “College established and administered by a minority entitled to make appointments etc. with approval of the Commission and the Syndicate. Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Secs.(6), (7) (8) (9) (10) and (11) of Sec.48-A, the Governing Body of an affiliated college established by minority based on religion or language, which the minority has the right to administer, shall be entitled to make appointments, dismissals, removals, termination of service or reduction in rank of teachers or take other disciplinary measures subject only to the approval of the Commission and the Syndicate of the University.” In para 13, the Supreme Court has also held as follows: “We are, therefore, quite clear that St.Xaviour’s College was founded by a Catholic Minority Community based on religion and that this educational institution has the protection of Art.30(l) of the Constitution. For the same reason it is exempted under Sec.48-B of the Act.” That apart in Rule 15(4) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 there is a reference to the School Committee. The Committee should obtain prior permission of the District Educational Officer but there will be no school Committee in a minority institution. Sec. 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, it is not applicable to the minority institution as per the judgment of this Court dated 29. 1976 in W.A.No.295 of 1975 and W.P.No.4478 of 1974 etc. Therefore, there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the teacher appointed as P.G. Assistant is possessing sufficient qualification. In these circumstances, I do not find that there is any justification for refusing to approve her appointment to pay her salary. Hence no writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.