JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 30.08.2012 made in W.P.No. 9219 of 2012, wherein the respondent herein has prayed for quashing the order passed by the third appellant dated 29.02.2012 rejecting the approval sought for appointment to the post of non-teaching staff. 2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) and Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned Single Judge has considered the rule position under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and it was held inapplicable to the minority institutions. The status of the respondent that it is a minority institution, is not in dispute. Hence, the said Rule viz., 15(4) of the Rules cannot be held to be applicable, in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 4478 of 1974 etc. batch, against which, Special Leave Petitions were preferred, which were remitted subsequently and they were heard and disposed of holding that certain provisions of this Act are not applicable to minority institutions. 4. Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act 1973 (hereinafter) referred to as “the Act”) states that the School Committee shall get permission from the competent authority to fill up vacant posts. Section 15 of the said Act contemplates the constitution of School Committee in private schools. The said section is not applicable to minority schools. The said fact is reiterated in the decision in T. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. The Director of School Education and another reported in 2012 WLR 463 which was rendered following the Judgment of Division Bench made in W.A.Nos. 1159 and 1160 of 2006 dated 12.01.2010 etc., (Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School v. N. Ganapathi and others). The appellants are not disputing the fact about the minority character of the respondent school. Minority status was granted by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 1089, Education Department dated 06.11.1992. The respondent appointed the Junior Assistant in a sanctioned post and the post is still available in the school and the appointment was also approved by order dated 02.03.2011 which was subsequently cancelled on 29.02.2012. 5. In the light of the above said legal position, there is no error in the appointment made by the management and the impugned order of the Department was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. 5. In the light of the above said legal position, there is no error in the appointment made by the management and the impugned order of the Department was rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.