JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. 1. This intra-court appeal arises out of the order dated 28.04.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 10196 of 2018 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their description in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience. 2. The Petitioner, who has completed Diploma in Teacher Education, was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the School of the Fifth Respondent, which is an aided minority institution, by order dated 30.06.2012 in a sanctioned vacancy. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. No. 181, School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011, in pursuance of Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, that the teachers who passed the Teacher Eligibility Test were alone made eligible to become teacher. It is also stated therein that in view of the specific provisions of that enactment, those who do not possess the qualification of pass in Teacher Eligibility Test at the time of its commencement on 01.04.2010, would have to acquire that minimum qualification within a period of five years. When the appointment of the Petitioner by the school of the Fifth Respondent was sent to the Third Respondent for approval for the purpose of receiving aid, the Third Respondent by proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 4176/A3/2013 dated 20.04.2018 held that since the Petitioner did not possess the requirement of pass in Teacher Eligibility Test, his appointment could not be approved. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 10196 of 2018 before this Court challenging the said order of the Third Respondent refusing to accept the appointment of the Petitioner and for consequential direction to the Respondents to approve the Petitioner's appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in the school of the Fifth Respondent from the date of joining on 02.07.2012 with all service and monetary benefits by sanctioning grant within stipulated time. 3. 3. In the interregnum, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trusts -vs- Union of India [ (2014) 8 SCC 1 ] has held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, does not apply to aided and unaided minority educational institutions and relying on that binding decision, a Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai -vs- S. Jeyalakshmi [ (2016) 4 LW 841 ] has laid down that it is not necessary for the teachers in schools run by the aided minority institution to require a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test for approving their appointment. The said view has been reiterated by the subsequent decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in K. Solomon Jeyaraj -vs- Secretary, Department of School Education (Judgment dated 25.11.2016 in W.A. (MD) No. 1437 of 2016), Y. Kanagaraj -vs- State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment dated 16.06.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 724 of 2017) and K. Anita -vs- State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment dated 26.02.2018 in W.A. (MD) No. 1090 of 2017). 4. The Writ Court, citing the aforesaid ruling of the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 28.04.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 10196 of 2018, quashed the order that was impugned and directed the Third Respondent to approve the appointment of the Petitioner from the date of appointment and entitled him to claim salary from the date of appointment, aggrieved by which the First to Fourth Respondents have preferred this appeal. 5. When the matter was listed for admission today, we have heard Mrs. S. Srimathy, Learned Special Government Pleader for the First to Fourth Respondents and Mr. T.A. Ebenezer, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner who has entered caveat. We have also perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Fourth Respondents submitted that by not requiring teachers of aided minority institutions to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test, discrimination would be created between the teachers of minority and non-minority educational institutions without any rational nexus, which ought not to be countenanced. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Fourth Respondents submitted that by not requiring teachers of aided minority institutions to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test, discrimination would be created between the teachers of minority and non-minority educational institutions without any rational nexus, which ought not to be countenanced. In this regard, it has to be pointed out that the requirement of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test has been made in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which has been held to be not applicable to minority institutions, and as such, if the State Government wanted such qualification to be included for the minority institutions as well, it was for the appropriate Legislature to enact necessary law to that effect and in absence thereof, it would not be possible to require the teachers of the minority institutions to posses that qualification. Further, reference may be made to the following paragraphs in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai -vs- S. Jeyalakshmi [ (2016) 4 LW 841 ] in which it has been held as follows:- “60. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the Government cannot insist upon the minority institution, both aided or unaided, to abide by any Regulation framed under the provisions of the RTE Act. Therefore, we hold that G.O. Ms. No. 181, School Education (C2) Department dated 15.11.2011 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is not applicable to the minority institutions. 62. However, keeping in mind the larger interest in which the Government has issued the above G.O.s, this Court feels that the minority institutions may also consider conducting a refresher course and also some interactive sessions to all the Teachers during annual vacation, in order to ensure and improve the quality of Teachers.” This would certainly mean that it is for the concerned authorities to take appropriate decision in consonance with the aforesaid observations, but the Third Respondent cannot decline to grant approval for the appointment of the Petitioner in the school of the Fifth Respondent on the ground that he had not passed the Teacher Eligibility Test. 7. 7. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal and we concur with the decision of the Writ Court in which it has been held that the Third Respondent shall pass necessary orders for the approval of the appointment of the Petitioner in the school of the Fifth Respondent with effect from the date of his joining duty and pay the arrears. Accordingly, the decision taken by the Third Respondent in compliance thereof shall be communicated to the parties concerned by 31.01.2019 and the arrears of salary and other monetary benefits that has fallen due shall be paid to the Petitioner under written acknowledgment by 31.03.2019 and a report of compliance in that regard shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to that effect immediately thereafter. 8. The Writ Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.