Judgment :- 1. These five writ petitioners are teachers appointed by the second respondent college viz., YMCA College of Physical Education and YMCA College Sports, Higher Secondary School, Nandanam. The prayer made in these writ petitions is for a direction to the first respondent, District Educational Officer, Chennai Central, Chennai, to grant approval to their appointment made by the second respondent school on various dates. In WP.No. 26777 of 2012, the petitioner was appointed as Tamil Teacher with effect from 1.6.2010. It was stated that the order of the appointment was subject to approval by the first respondent. It is also stated that subsequent appointment proposals have been sent and no orders have been passed. At this juncture, the petitioner had a recourse to Right to Information Act and sought for information from the first respondent. The first respondent by proceedings dated 28.2.2012, informed the petitioner that the second respondent has filed a suit in C.S.No.340 of 1998 before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to City Civil Court and pending in C.S.No. 1200 of 2011. In the said suit, written statement had been filed. It is further stated that if a school wants to have a minority status, it has to apply to the proper forum and get the status declared. Without sending any application to the Government seeking to declare minority status, the Management has unilaterally functioning. In view of the pending suit in respect of minority status, it was informed that the appointment made by the Management cannot be approved by the department. Hence, the writ petition came to be filed. 2. In the second Writ Petition viz., WP.No. 26778 of 2012, the petitioner was appointed as B.T Assistant (Science) with effect from 31.7.2009, on account of regular vacancy which arose due to promotion of one Priscilla Paul on 30.7.2009. In the third Writ Petition viz., WP.No. 26779 of 2012, the petitioner appointed as B.T Assistant (English) with effect from 10.6.2009 on a regular vacancy which arose due to the retirement of one D.Ebenezer Santhakumari on 31.3.2009. In the fourth Writ Petition viz., WP.No. 26780 of 2012, the petitioner was appointed as B.T Assistant (History) with effect from 1.6.2010 on a regular vacancy which arose due to the retirement of one N.Baskaran on 31.5.2010. In the fourth Writ Petition viz., WP.No. 26780 of 2012, the petitioner was appointed as B.T Assistant (History) with effect from 1.6.2010 on a regular vacancy which arose due to the retirement of one N.Baskaran on 31.5.2010. In the last Writ Petition viz., WP.No. 26781 of 2012, the petitioner was appointed as B.T Assistant (Maths) with effect from 1.6.2009 on a regular vacancy which arose due to the retirement of one R.Vincent on 30.4.2009. 3. In all these cases, the first respondent did not act upon the proposals sent by the second respondent Management. When these writ petitions came on 4.10.2012, notice of motion was ordered. Till date, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In any event, the only ground under which their appointments were not considered for approval by the first respondent is due to pendency of suit in respect of minority status of the second respondent Management. This Court has to find out whether the reason given by the first respondent is legal and justified. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on earlier decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No. 30727 of 2007 in the case ofP.MANIVANNAN v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI AND OTHERS dated 12.11.2007. In an identical circumstances this Court dealt with the issue as to whether the second respondent Management is a minority school or not. In paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said order, it was observed as follows:- "7. With reference to the status of the said Institution, it is seen from the records that the Educational Agency of the School, namely, the National Council of YMCA, New Delhi has filed a Civil Suit before this Court in C.S.No. 345 of 1998. They have also taken out an original application being O.A.No. 230 of 1998 and this Court by an interim order dated 30.4.1998 had made the following order, which was found in paragraph 2: "2. It appears, all along the petitioner had been enjoying the status of a minority institution. Therefore, the same status quo is to continue and Notice to the respondent in six weeks" 8. Subsequently, in respect of another workman's dispute came before this Court, this Court after referring to the interim order referred to above held that until any decision to the contrary is taken, the School will have to be treated as Minority Institution. Therefore, the same status quo is to continue and Notice to the respondent in six weeks" 8. Subsequently, in respect of another workman's dispute came before this Court, this Court after referring to the interim order referred to above held that until any decision to the contrary is taken, the School will have to be treated as Minority Institution. The said decision of the Division Bench is reported in 2007(3) LLN 389 (YMCA COLLEGE SPORTS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL (SPORTS WING) REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT), CHENNAI v. PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER. The following passage found in para 16 from the said judgment may be usefully reproduced: "16. In so far as the finding that the petitioner is not a minority institution is concerned, the matter is pending before this Court in C.S.No. 348 of 1998 and an interim order is also granted by this court in favour of the petitioner – management by order, dated April 30, 1998. Hence, the Labour court is not justified in giving a finding that the petitioner school is not a minority school. Hence, the said finding given by the Labour court is set aside. " 9. Therefore, as of now, the School will have to be treated as a Minority Institution having the full protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Once it is a minority institution, then the question as to who should be appointed as a Headmaster of the School is largely left to the decision of the School Management and the Education Department has very little say on this issue. " 4. Even otherwise, learned counsel produced copy of the Government Order in G.O. (Ms). No. 309, Higher Education (E1) Department dated 21.9.2010, wherein YMCA College of Physical Education, Nandanam functioning in the same campus was granted the Religious Minority Status for the period of five years from the academic years 201011 by the Secretary to Government. In paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the order, it was stated as follows: "2. No. 309, Higher Education (E1) Department dated 21.9.2010, wherein YMCA College of Physical Education, Nandanam functioning in the same campus was granted the Religious Minority Status for the period of five years from the academic years 201011 by the Secretary to Government. In paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the order, it was stated as follows: "2. The Government have examined the proposal of the Director of Collegiate Education sent in his letter fourth read above for conferment of Religious Minority Status to YMCA College of Physical Education, Nandanam, Chennai and the circumstances stated by the Correspondent / Secretary, YMCA College of Physical Education, Chennai in his letter fifth read above and also based on the orders issued in the Government Orders first and third read above in detail and decided to accept the same subject to certain conditions. 3. Accordingly, they direct that the YMCA College of Physical Education, Nandanam, Chennai run by the National Council of YMCA's of India, New Delhi, be conferred Religious Minority Status for a period of five years from 2010-11, pending execution of supplementary deed amending the object clause of the Memorandum of Association of the Trust, based on the resolution of the Executive Committee of the National Council of YMCA's of India meeting held on 15.5.2010, within a period of one year. 4. The above order is subject to the ultimate guidelines that are to be laid down in the 'Indicia' to be framed by the Regular Bench of Supreme Court of India for treating an educational institution as a minority institution and subject to the following conditions stipulated in the Government Order third read above:- i) The Director of Collegiate Education (or) Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education concerned should conduct annual inspection of the institution. ii) If the Minority Institution, by commission or omission does anything against the minority status, the Head of the Department (i.e. the Director of Collegiate Education) shall bring it to the notice of the Government for withdrawal of the minority status and the Government shall take further necessary action for withdrawal of the minority status after giving an opportunity to the institution concerned. " 5. By the above G.O., the YMCA College is treated as minority college, whereas, the school situated in the same campus of College cannot be treated as minority school. " 5. By the above G.O., the YMCA College is treated as minority college, whereas, the school situated in the same campus of College cannot be treated as minority school. In any event, the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No. 30727 of 2007 in the case ofP.MANIVANNAN v. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI AND OTHERS dated 12.11.2007 squarely applies to the case on hand. The suit is still pending. There is no option for the first respondent except to consider the proposals sent by the second respondent Management. Hence, these writ petitions are allowed and direction is hereby issued to the first respondent to consider the proposals sent by the second respondent school in respect of these writ petitioners treating the school as minority institution. However, it is open to the first respondent to scrutiny the Educational Qualification of the teachers and only when they satisfies Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, they need to grant approval. Such exercise shall be undertaken by the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this. The second respondent is directed to co-operate in forwarding the records as required by the first respondent. No costs.