JUDGMENT : This appeal is against a judgment of a learned Single Judge validating, in substance, the respondent writ petitioner’s appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a minority institution. The Institution in question is Tinplate Christian Club Middle School, Jamshedpur and the selection process in respect thereof commenced on the basis of an advertisement issued on 2nd June, 2007. A copy of the advertisement has been made Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Copy of the writ petition has been annexed to a supplementary affidavit filed in support of the memorandum of appeal. Appointment to such posts is guided primarily by an administrative circular issued by the Government of Bihar at the relevant point of time dated 4th March 1993. The relevant clause of the said circular, on the basis of which the State is questioning legality of her appointment stipulated :- “The application should be received from only trained candidates after getting the vacant posts advertised by the school management committee.” (translated) 2. The respondent writ petitioner while applying for the post in response to the advertisement fulfilled the eligibility criteria except that at that point of time she was pursuing the course of teachers’ training and did not complete the same. It is not in dispute that in her application form she had disclosed that on the date of making of the application, she did not receive the certificate. Result of the teachers’ training course was published on 18th December, 2007. The Managing Committee, however, selected the writ petitioner along with other candidates on 7th June, 2008 and the select list was also published on that date. She was issued appointment letter on 8th June, 2008. Objection as regards her eligibility came at the approval stage. The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in a communication dated 18th August, 2011, the copy of which has been made as Annexure-25 to the writ petition, declined to give approval to her appointment on the ground that at the material point of time the writ petitioner was not a trained teacher. There has been subsequent exchange of communications among different authorities on this subject. Representation was also made on behalf of the writ petitioner and school management for release of her salary which were not being effected by the State. There has been subsequent exchange of communications among different authorities on this subject. Representation was also made on behalf of the writ petitioner and school management for release of her salary which were not being effected by the State. Subsequently, the writ petitioner complained to the Lok Ayukta, which prompted an enquiry by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, made at the instance of the Director, Primary Education. In his report, the Regional Deputy Director had outlined that at the time of interview, the writ petitioner had cleared her B.Ed. Thereafter, by a communication dated 24th December, 2014, the District Superintendent of Education informed the Director, Primary Education that the appointment of the writ petitioner was directed to be cancelled. The reason for such cancellation was that on the date of publication of the advertisement and the last date of filing of the application for the subject post, the writ petitioner was not a trained teacher. 3. In the judgment under appeal, the learned First Court allowed the writ petition on the following reasoning :- “12. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate and convince this Court that it was only when a complaint was made before the Lokayukta, the respondent plunged into action for taking action against the petitioner and as such antedated orders were issued. The petitioner was appointed following the legal procedures which was in accordance with law. The petitioner having fulfilled the requisite qualification, the appointment was made. It was only after 7 years that the appointment of the petitioner has been questioned and later on cancelled. Before passing the impugned orders, the District Superintendent of Education ought to have examined the Rules issued for appointment of Primary Teacher. In absence of such enquiry and in absence of any reference of the Rules in the impugned order, the District Superintendent of Education came to a conclusion that the appointment is defective which is not tenable in the eyes of law.” 4. The appellant before us is the State and its officers. Main case argued by Mr. In absence of such enquiry and in absence of any reference of the Rules in the impugned order, the District Superintendent of Education came to a conclusion that the appointment is defective which is not tenable in the eyes of law.” 4. The appellant before us is the State and its officers. Main case argued by Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for the State, is that since on the date of advertisement the writ petitioner lacked the essential qualification, objection against approval of her appointment was valid and passage of time could not have lent legitimacy to such appointment. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar reported in (2010) 13 SCC 467 in support of his argument on that count. The same authority has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu, Jharkhand and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2012 (1) JCR 298 (Jhr). 5. Mr. Tandon, learned Advocate for the respondent writ petitioner has defended the judgment highlighting equitable consideration as also the provisions of different circulars guiding the field. The main circular, which has been relied upon by him, is a memorandum dated 21st July, 1983. Clause 3 of that memorandum stipulates :- “The District Superintendent of Education shall issue order regarding approval of appointment within 30 days from the date of receiving proposal from the management committee. If any type of order is not issued within the prescribed period then appointment made against the sanctioned post by the management committee shall be deemed to be approved and in such circumstances, the entire responsibility of irregular payment shall be of the concerned District Superintendent of Education. Thus, the reasoned information of appointments, deemed to be approved due to lapse of time period, shall be sent to the Director through registered post when District Superintendent of Education making payment for the first time” (translated version). 6. Mr. Tandon’s argument on this point is that in the case of the writ petitioner, as the approval did not come within the period of 30 days, her appointment deemed to have had been treated as approved. He has also relied upon certain provisions of the Jharkhand Primary School Appointment Rules, 2002. 6. Mr. Tandon’s argument on this point is that in the case of the writ petitioner, as the approval did not come within the period of 30 days, her appointment deemed to have had been treated as approved. He has also relied upon certain provisions of the Jharkhand Primary School Appointment Rules, 2002. Clause 2 (V) of the said Rules has been amended on 14th August, 2007, which stipulates :- “Such candidates who have completed the session for teacher training as mentioned in sub-Rule (I), (II), (III), (IV) of Rule 2 (B) and going to appear in examination for training shall be permitted to fill application form for examination to be held for appointment of the teachers and also given permission to appear in the examination. But such candidates have to submit the result of training before the date of publication of result of competitive examination for appointment of teachers organised by Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the time limit determine/fix by the Commission. Thereafter, their recommendation shall be made available to the department by the Commission.” (translated version). 7. He has also referred to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the said Statute stipulates :- “(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that notification. Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years.” 8. It is not in dispute that the 2002 Rules do not apply to a minority institution, but Mr. Tandon’s submission is that there cannot be discrimination between the appointment of teachers in regular institutions and minority institutions. The 2009 Act also became operational in the State with effect from 1st April, 2010 but Mr. Tandon’s submission is that his client’s right to upgrade her qualification upto the standard stood extended by virtue of operation of the Statute. 9. We have taken into consideration such submissions. The 2009 Act also became operational in the State with effect from 1st April, 2010 but Mr. Tandon’s submission is that his client’s right to upgrade her qualification upto the standard stood extended by virtue of operation of the Statute. 9. We have taken into consideration such submissions. It is a fact that the writ petitioner has continued in service, though unapproved, for more than ten years but we find her initial appointment was made at a time she did not have the requisite eligibility criteria on the date the advertisement was published or on the last date of filing of the application. We are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner that the advertisement stipulated only Matric Trained scale of pay and trained teacher was not the eligibility criteria. We have referred to the applicable Rules where such eligibility criteria is stipulated. In our view, the deeming provisions also cannot apply in the case of the writ petitioner as she lacked essential eligibility criteria at the time of commencement of the selection process. We accept the stand of the State that the Rules guiding primary schools cannot be extended to the minority institutions in absence of specific statutory provision made in that regard. There are other distinguishing features in respect of appointment in these two classes of institutions. The Rules are not otherwise pari-materia. There is also no scope of giving retrospective effect to the 2009 Act, as we have to consider the point of time of commencement of the selection process to be the relevant date for adjudicating the right of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has failed to establish any legal right to enforce her appointment in the post in question for the reasons we have already indicated. 10. What concerns us, however, is the fact that the writ petitioner has continued in service for a long period of time and had acquired the eligibility qualification in close proximity to the date of her application and before her selection. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal. 10. What concerns us, however, is the fact that the writ petitioner has continued in service for a long period of time and had acquired the eligibility qualification in close proximity to the date of her application and before her selection. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal. But on equitable consideration, we also direct the Institution concerned that in the event fresh selection process is conducted for the post for which the writ petitioner was selected, the writ petitioner’s candidature shall be considered afresh by the Institution and the State relaxing the age bar, if any, but otherwise following the applicable legal stipulations for such appointment. In the event she is selected afresh, the State and the educational authorities shall give approval to such appointment without raising any objection on age. It shall also be open to the Institution to retain her but her salary obligation in that case shall not be imposed on the State. 11. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. 12. The connected application (I.A. No. 1083 of 2018) shall also stand disposed of, as we have allowed the main appeal.