Judgment : 1. The second respondent - Kulandaivel Middle School is a Private School getting aid from the Tamil Nadu Government and the said school is governed by Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973. Due to the retirement of one Subramanian, a Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.07.2009, a vacancy arose in the second respondent school. Therefore, the second respondent school approached the first respondent to fill up the said vacant post. Accordingly, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 21.02.2011 seeking permission from the first respondent to fill up the vacant post subject to the following conditions:- (“Tamil”) (“Table”) 2. The second respondent, apart from seeking names from the Employment Exchange also called for applications from suitable candidates by an advertisement in the Newspaper. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post and he was called upon by the second respondent to attend the interview. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected by the second respondent and he was appointed by order dated 13.06.2011. 3. The second respondent - School sent a proposal dated 15.06.2011 to the first respondent seeking to approve the appointment of the petitioner. However, no order was passed by the first respondent on the said proposal either approving or rejecting the appointment of the petitioner. In the mean time, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the first respondent to grant approval in respect of his appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher made by the 2nd respondent by order dated 13.6.2011 and for payment of arrears of salary with effect from 13.6.2011. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that when a vacancy arose in the post of B.T.Assistant in the same school, one Tmt.Sainambu was appointed on 03.10.2011 and her appointment was approved by the first respondent on 03.09.2012 on condition that she should pass Teachers Eligibility Test within five years from the date of approval and the same is enclosed in page 5 of the typed set of papers filed in the writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent refuting the allegations made by the petitioner and seeking to dismiss the writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent refuting the allegations made by the petitioner and seeking to dismiss the writ petition. But, it is admitted by the first respondent in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that though the appointment of the petitioner was prior to appointment of Tmt.Sainambu, the first respondent had not approved the appointment of the petitioner. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a temporary approval is granted to the appointment of the petitioner as in the case of Tmt.Sainambu, since from 2012, it is mandatory for a Teacher, to get qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test to work in a School. 8. It is an admitted fact that in 2011, there was no eligible candidate viz., candidate who passed Teacher Eligibility Test for the appointment to the vacant post, hence, the second respondent school had no option except to appoint a qualified teacher, but who was not qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test. It is to be noted that Teacher Eligibility Tests were conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu only in 2012. In such circumstances, the appointments made in Private aided Schools appointing teachers, who does not qualify Teacher Eligibility Test to fill up the vacancy prior to conduct of such Test, is held to be in order, otherwise, non-appointment of teachers in the vacant post would affect the interest of the students. 9. Taking into account the said fact, this Court time and again passed orders directing the State to grant temporary approval to those appointments, which were made before the conduct of Teacher Eligibility Test by the Government of Tamil Nadu with a condition that those teachers should get qualified Teacher Eligibility Test within five years. I am of the view that by virtue of the orders of this Court, Tmt.Sainambu's appointment was given approval with condition that she should pass TET within a period of five years. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is pointed out that the Director of Elementary Education, by his proceedings dated 12.4.2012 stated that unless a teacher gets qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test, his or her appointment should not be approved. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is pointed out that the Director of Elementary Education, by his proceedings dated 12.4.2012 stated that unless a teacher gets qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test, his or her appointment should not be approved. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that before issuance of the said proceedings dated 12.4.2012, the first respondent approved the order of appointment of Tmt.Sainambu. 11. I am of the view that the aforesaid reason given by the first respondent to support the case of Tmt.Sainambu and consequently, for not extending the said benefit to the writ petitioner herein is not acceptable to me. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the first respondent, laid down certain conditions while issuing proceedings dated 21.02.2011 granting permission to fill up the vacant post, had not laid down a condition to the effect that only candidates, who were qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test could be appointed in the second respondent school. As such, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same treatment as given to Tmt.Sainambu is to be given to the petitioner also. 13. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find acceptance with the present restricted prayer sought for by the petitioner for a temporary approval of his appointment with a condition that he should pass Teacher Eligibility Test within five years of such appointment. 14. In such circumstances, in fitness of things, this Court directs the first respondent to grant temporary approval to the petitioner's appointment with effect from 13.06.2011 and also consequential benefits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is needless to state that if the petitioner fails to qualify himself in the Teacher Eligibility Test within five years of his approval, he would lose employment. 15. Since the petitioner was appointed and is in service from 13.06.2011, at which time, the qualification of Teacher Eligibility Test was not insisted, neither the petitioner, nor the second respondent could be blamed for the petitioner's appointment, who was not qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test. 16. The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.