JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court, dated 18.11.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.22085 of 2016.) 1. This Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court, dated 18.11.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.22085 of 2016. 2. The Writ Petition was filed for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) with effect from the date of her appointment, i.e., 01.06.2012 and to grant all service and monetary benefits by considering the proposal resubmitted by the fifth respondent, dated 11.08.2016, without insisting a pass in TET within a time frame. 3. This Court has allowed the Writ Petition stating that the minority institutions are not covered under Right to Free Education Act and has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.213 to 572 of 2016 made applicable to the minority institutions. Therefore, TET is not applicable to minority institutions. The respondents shall not claim a pass in TET. Thereafter, this Court has directed the fifth respondent School to resubmit the proposal and other respondents shall approve the appointment and disburse the grant in aid and salary with effect from the date of appointment and pay arrears within two months. Since the said order was not complied with, the petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition against the DEO to punish the contemnor. 4. The contemnor has filed a counter affidavit stating that the fifth respondent School in Writ Petition is a minority aided School and is governed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and Rules 1974 and it is also covered under the Tamil Nadu minority Schools Recognition and Payment of grants Rules, 1977 and various G.O.s issued by the Tamil Nadu Government. A post of B.T. Assistant fell vacant due to the promotion of the existing incumbent as P.G. Assistant. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant with effect from 01.06.2012 with a condition that the petitioner should pass TET within the stipulated time granted under the provision i.e. 31.03.2019. At the time of appointment, the petitioner did not clear TET. A post of B.T. Assistant fell vacant due to the promotion of the existing incumbent as P.G. Assistant. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant with effect from 01.06.2012 with a condition that the petitioner should pass TET within the stipulated time granted under the provision i.e. 31.03.2019. At the time of appointment, the petitioner did not clear TET. In the counter it is further stated that after perusing the proposal, it was found that the petitioner acquired dual degree/cross major and hence, the petitioner's appointment cannot be approved. The petitioner has passed 10th standard in the year 1992, plus two in the year 1995, B.Sc., (Science) in the year 1997, B.Ed., in May 2006 and then within one year passed B.Lit. in the year 2011. The petitioner was appointed on 01.06.2012 and the surplus status of the School ought to be taken into account while granting approval. In order to obey the Court order the proposal was processed and at the time of processing the proposal it was brought to the knowledge that the petitioner has cleared TET. Thereafter it was found that a Secondary Grade Teacher was identified as surplus in the staff fixation for the year 2012-2013. 5. It is seen from the records that the Writ Petition was disposed of on 18.11.2016 with certain directions. Aggrieved over the orders, the Department preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No.1778 of 2021 and the Writ Appeal is still pending. 6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed this Contempt Petition. As far as the issue of surplus is concerned, an SLP is filed against the orders passed in W.A.No.76 of 2019 and batch of cases in Irudhaya Amalli's case and it has been numbered as Special Leave Petition No.15702 of 2021 and the same is pending. The qualification for appointment of Tamil Pandit is B.Lit., and the petitioner has obtained through one year course and the same cannot be accepted as a qualified degree in the appointment and the same is contrary to the decisions of the Court. Hence, the Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Department. The contemnor also submitted that since the issue was raised before the Writ Appeal, which is a statutory appeal, the respondents ought to be granted time until the writ appeal is disposed. 7. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The contemnor also submitted that since the issue was raised before the Writ Appeal, which is a statutory appeal, the respondents ought to be granted time until the writ appeal is disposed. 7. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 8. It is seen from the records that the order was passed in the year 2016 and the respondents have preferred a Writ Appeal belatedly in W.A.(MD)No.1778 of 2021 and the same is pending. The reasons stated by the respondents are that the petitioner has not passed TET. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that TET is not applicable to minority institutions but the said issue whether it is applicable to minority institutions or not is pending before the Supreme Court in Aswini Thanappan case as well as B. Annie Packiarani Bai case filed in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 17702 / 2021. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the issue is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, there cannot be any contempt. Moreover, the issue of surplus is also pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. The third issue raised by is dual degree and cross major. The petitioner has studied the B.Lit., course in one year and the said qualification cannot be accepted. This issue ought to be adjudicated in the Writ Appeal as well and the writ appeal filed against the impugned order is pending before the Division Bench. Since the department has preferred a Writ Appeal, which is a statutory appeal, the respondents have right to agitate the issue in Writ Appeal in a statutory appeal. Therefore, there cannot be any contempt at this stage. 10. Hence, the Contempt Petition is closed. No costs.