JUDGMENT : M.S.RAMESH, J. PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.19213 of 2024 dated 20.08.2024 and to allow this Writ Appeal. Challenge is made to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.08.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.19213 of 2024. 2.One S.Jayanthi Nirmala Rani, was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher (Tamil) in the respondent School on 01.03.2013. The Teacher was possessing all qualifications, except Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). 3.The respondent School, being an aided minority educational institution, can appoint a Teacher without TET qualification as per the law declared by this Court in more than one decision. Therefore, once the appointment is approved, the Teacher would be entitled to get salary and other perquisites, including periodical increments. 4.However, the appellant Department though had approved the appointment of the Teacher concerned and released the salary every month, has not allowed the Teacher to claim regular increment. Therefore, in order to redress the said grievance, the School had approached the Writ Court by filing the said Writ Petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 20.08.2024, which is impugned herein. 5.The issue raised in this Writ Appeal has already been raised in number of cases and recently, in a similar issue in W.A. (MD)No.670 of 2024 dated 12.04.2024, in the case of The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District and another Vs. Y Joseph Mercy Rani and another, where also considering the similar issue, this Court has passed the following order:- “22.Moreover, as far as the 1st respondent teacher is concerned, admittedly, she did not have the TET qualification. However, she has been appointed as a B.T Assistant (Tamil), as stated supra, in the 2nd respondent school, which is admittedly a minority institution. The Division Bench has made it very clear that, the requirement of TET cannot be insisted upon for a teacher to be appointed in minority institutions. The very same principle has been recently reiterated in another Division Bench judgment in W.A.Nos.19, 31, 32 and 36 of 2023 dated 02.06.2023. In the said judgment also, this position has been reiterated. This has been taken into account by a subsequent Division Bench in the matter of Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District and another vs. R.Jhansi Rani and another in W.A(MD)No.1865 of 2021, dated 15.06.2023, where, one of us (R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) is a party. In the said judgment also, this position has been reiterated. This has been taken into account by a subsequent Division Bench in the matter of Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District and another vs. R.Jhansi Rani and another in W.A(MD)No.1865 of 2021, dated 15.06.2023, where, one of us (R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) is a party. 23.Therefore, it is the consistent stand as of now taken by various Division Benches of this Court that, insofar as the minority institutions are concerned, the insistment or requirement of the TET qualification is not a must. When that being the position, the teacher concerned, who has been appointed in the 2nd respondent school, which is admittedly a minority institution, is holding the post without any demur. Therefore, such an appointment should be approved by the department which, in fact, was directed by the Division Bench in their order dated 24.08.2016. 24.The interpretation, therefore, sought to be given by the appellants that the Division Bench has only directed to release the salary, is without any basis, as the Division Bench in paragraph 63 of the order, as we recorded earlier, has made it very clear that the writ petitions were allowed including the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent in the first round. 25.When that being so, the reasoning given and the conclusion reached by the learned Judge in the order impugned, by allowing the said writ petition in the impugned order, is fully justified and fortified by the afore-stated reasons. Hence, we do not see any plausible reason to interfere with the order which is impugned herein, passed by the Writ Court. 26.Resultantly, this appeal has to be failed. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the Writ Court shall be complied with by the appellant department within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” 6.The present case also is similar to the facts of the said case. The appointment of the Teacher concerned since has been approved with effect from 30.05.2018, she would be entitled to claim annual increment periodically, which cannot be withheld by the appellant Department. Therefore, to that extent, the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, is to be sustained. 7.Resultantly, this Writ Appeal fails, accordingly, it is dismissed. The appointment of the Teacher concerned since has been approved with effect from 30.05.2018, she would be entitled to claim annual increment periodically, which cannot be withheld by the appellant Department. Therefore, to that extent, the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, is to be sustained. 7.Resultantly, this Writ Appeal fails, accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.