ORDER : The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to treat the period of service i.e. from 28.03.2000 to 31.07.2005 in the fourth respondent School as regularised and to pay the petitioner all backwages and all attendant benefits with 12% p.a. interest or interest on the arrears of backwages as fixed by this Court. 2. The fourth respondent School is a recognised minority Private School where there is a post called Secondary Grade Teacher which became vacant in view of the erstwhile incumbent one K. Mary Mathew retired from service. In the vacancy caused, the petitioner was appointed on 28.03.2000. 3. Though such an appointment was made to the petitioner by the fourth respondent School and continuously from the date of appointment, the petitioner had been working in the fourth respondent School and in this regard, the fourth respondent School had made a request to the official respondents to approve her appointment, no such approval has been given by the official respondents. 4. In this context, the file was forwarded seeking for clarification from the Director of Elementary Education, i.e., the second respondent by the District Elementary Education Officer, the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.3731/A2/2001 dated 28.09.2001, where he has sought for the following clarification: "Other Language" 5. Earlier, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer concerned vide his proceedings dated 03.09.2001 addressed to the third respondent by sending the following letter with recommendation. "Other Language" 6. Despite these communications having been sent by the official respondents, no clarification had been given by the second respondent as sought for by the third respondent and all along the petitioner's file was kept pending and no approval was given. 7. Nevertheless, the petitioner had been continuously working for five years and more at the fourth respondent School where admittedly the fourth respondent School has extracted the work from the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 8. 7. Nevertheless, the petitioner had been continuously working for five years and more at the fourth respondent School where admittedly the fourth respondent School has extracted the work from the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher. 8. Thereafter, at one point of time, since there was no salary paid to the petitioner as the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the official respondents and in this regard, the fourth respondent School, being an aided School, also had not come forward to pay the salary to the petitioner on their own, the petitioner has left the institution and after having worked in some other State had again returned back to Tamil Nadu and she was selected and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 2008 by the State Government in Government School and continuously, thereafter she has been working as such. 9. In this context, it is the grievance of the petitioner that, for the period for which the petitioner worked as a Secondary Grade Teacher at the fourth respondent School, no salary had been paid and the reason for non-payment of salary, according to the fourth respondent School, is that the proposal sent for approval since has not been decided and no clarification as sought for by the third respondent also was given. 10. In this context, it is the further grievance of the petitioner that, either the appointment made to the petitioner in the fourth respondent School in the year 2000 should be approved by the official respondents, accordingly, the teaching grant should be forwarded to the fourth respondent School, who in turn, shall pay the salary to the petitioner or if the official respondents feel that, the petitioner's appointment was irregular or illegal in view of the lack of qualification, according to the rules, as per the official respondents stand, it is for the fourth respondent School to pay the salary for the years worked by the petitioner as admittedly atleast five years, the petitioner had worked in that fourth respondent School and work had been extracted from her. 11. Only in that context, this writ petition was filed in the year 2012 with the aforesaid prayer. 12. Today, when the case is taken up for final hearing, Mr. 11. Only in that context, this writ petition was filed in the year 2012 with the aforesaid prayer. 12. Today, when the case is taken up for final hearing, Mr. R. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the aforesaid facts and would submit that, either the approval has to be given by the official respondents as the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher at the fourth respondent School at the relevant point of time, otherwise if at all the official respondents wanted to reject the plea made by the fourth respondent School with regard to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, that should be made expressly and once such rejection is made for granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner even then would be entitled to get the salary atleast from the fourth respondent School as admittedly they have extracted work from the petitioner for the five long years. 13. However, Mr.MV.John Zachariah, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent School would submit that, the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent School, which is a linguistic minority School, where, the medium of instruction is Malayalam, the petitioner was the Malayalam speaking person and in other words, her mother tongue is Malayalam and she also qualified in Malayalam language, therefore, in all fairness, that appointment should have been approved by the official respondents and in this regard, based on the proposal submitted by the School, when a clarification was sought for by the third respondent to the second respondent by his proceedings dated 28.09.2001, no such clarification had ever been given by the second respondent and with the result, the appointment of the petitioner could not be approved and after some years, since the petitioner could not continue in the job without salary, she left the School and therefore, if at all the petitioner is entitled to get the salary for the period she rendered service to the fourth respondent School, that salary had to be paid only by the Government i.e., the official respondents on approving the appointment made against the petitioner with effect from 28.03.2000, he contended. 14. However, Mr. 14. However, Mr. S. Suresh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that, in this regard, the rule position is very clear, as per which, what has been prescribed as a qualification to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, especially in linguistic minority School where the medium of instruction is other than Tamil, the qualification prescribed therein must have been obtained by the Teacher concerned who seeks appointment in a linguistic minority School. 15. He would further submit that, in the case in hand, the petitioner even though has qualified with the language Malayalam, admittedly, she did not have the qualification in Teacher Education Diploma Course in Malayalam medium. Therefore, if she is appointed in a School where the medium of instruction is Malayalam, certainly, that would be deterimental to the students, that, as a Teacher without the qualification into other subjects except through Malayalam language, cannot be accepted to teach the other subjects in Malayalam instruction. Therefore, because of the lack of qualification, her appointment was not approved. 16. In this context, the learned Government Advocate would also submit that, if at all any clarification was sought for in the year 2001 by the third respondent to the second respondent, it will be checked up whether any clarification has been sought for and if no such clarification as sought for is given, certainly, that would be considered and be given and at any rate, the appointment made against the petitioner in the fourth respondent School in the year 2000 with lack of qualification to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Malayalam instruction School, certainly, would not be approved and therefore, an order to that effect would be passed by the second respondent within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court, he contended. 17. I have considered those submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 18. 17. I have considered those submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 18. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, if at all a basic qualification is prescribed under the relevant rules for making an appointment as a Teacher in a particular subject or in a particular type of School where the medium instruction is other than the Tamil language in the State of Tamil Nadu and in the present case, it is the Malayalam instruction School, certainly that kind of appointment cannot be accepted for approval if the teacher does not fulfill the qualification. As the law is well settled, that when there is an initial appointment where the proper qualification to be fulfilled in this regard, without fulfilling such qualification, if any such appointment is made, that would be construed only as an illegal appointment. Therefore, that kind of illegal appointment at any later point of time, can be approved or rectified. 19. In this context, this Court feels that, no mandamus can be issued to the official respondents to approve the appointment made against the petitioner in the fourth respondent School in the year 2000. 20. Resultantly, if at all the clarification sought for by the third respondent in the year 2001 has not been clarified or given reply by the second respondent, certainly, a reply by way of clarification can be given to the District Elementary Education Officer concerned on the basis of the letter of the D.E.E.O. concerned and a communication in this regard can also be sent to the petitioner by the fourth respondent School. However, in the case in hand, subsequent development should also be taken into consideration by this Court, where, the petitioner left after some years of service at the fourth respondent School and after some years, she was able to get a job as a Teacher, who has been selected and appointed as such in a Government School in the year 2008, where she is peacefully working. Therefore, the only grievance, which are left to be redressed to the petitioner, is that the salary payable to the petitioner for five years she rendered service at the fourth respondent School, for which, if at all the official respondents do not come forward to approve the appointment of the petitioner, and if any such order is passed, pursuant to which, it is open to the petitioner to adjudicate the issue with the fourth respondent School and in that case, it is for the fourth respondent to decide to pay the salary and in this regard, this Court do not want to make any comment as to the entitlement of the petitioner to get salary from the fourth respondent School or the liability of the fourth respondent to pay salary and that issue can be resolved between the fourth respondent and the petitioner in the manner known to law. 21. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders. (i) That the second respondent is directed to give a clarification / order accepting or rejecting the plea raised by the petitioner through the fourth respondent School with regard to her appointment with effect from 28.03.2000 as sought for by the third respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3731/A2/2001 dated 28.09.2001 and such order shall be passed, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by the second respondent and once such order is passed, based on which, consequential order can also be passed by the third respondent and communicate the same to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent School. (ii) Once such order is passed as per the stand now taken by the official respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner through the fourth respondent School for approving her appointment with effect from 28.03.2000, on receipt of such order from the official respondents, the petitioner can adjudicate the issue with regard to her grievance for getting salary for the five years period, where the petitioner had worked at the fourth respondent School and once such issue has come up, it is for the petitioner and the fourth respondent to resolve the same in the manner known to law. 22. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.