JUDGMENT : R. Vijayakumar, J. (Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the orders dated 19.07 2021 made in WP(MD).Nos.15428 of 2020 & 152 of 2021 and allow the above writ appeals.) 1. The facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals are as follows: (i) In W.P(MD).No.15428 of 2020 has been filed by a B.T.Assistant Teacher of an aided minority School challenging the non-approval of her appointment on the ground that she had not acquired 5 years teaching experience. (ii) The petitioner in the said writ petition was appointed as B.T.Assistant on 12.08.2015 in an aided minority School. She was promoted as a Headmistress on 24.06.2016. A proposal was sent to the authorities for approval 18.08.2017. The said proposal was returned on the ground that the petitioner has not acquired five years of teaching experience. The School Management had filed W.P.No.10745 of 2018 seeking relaxation of five years experience and the same was dismissed on 26.04.2018. The writ appeal preferred by the Management in W.A.No.1405 of 2018 was also dismissed on 10.07.2018. (iii) According to the petitioner, G.O.Ms.No.97, School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 was not brought to the notice of the Court. Hence, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.2829 of 2019 to consider her representation dated 04.10.2018 in the light of G.O(3D).No.125, (School Education (B-1) Department), dated 21.09.2007. This Court was pleased to pass an order on 01.02.2019 directing the authorities to consider the plea of the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed rejecting the request of the writ petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No.15428 of 2020. (iv) The writ Court relying upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No.676 of 2014 dated 25.03.2021 proceeded to allow the writ petition and directed the authorities to approve the promotion with effect from 12.08.2015 as Headmistress and pay salary of B.T.Assistant till she completes five years of teaching experience and thereafter, continue to pay the scale of pay applicable to the post of Headmistress. This order is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 2. This order is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 2. W.A(MD).No.308 of 2022: (i) W.P(MD).No.152 of 2021 was filed by a B.T.Assistant Teacher who was appointed on 01.04.2019 challenging the order passed by the Educational Authority wherein the request of the School Management for approval of her appointment was rejected on the ground that promotion of one Jeevitha (B.T.Assistant) as Headmistress has not been approved and therefore, there is no vacancy for appointment of B.T.Assistant Teacher (English). (ii) The writ Court by its order dated 19.07.2021 had allowed the writ petition on the ground that W.P(MD).No.15428 of 2020 filed by one Jeevitha has been allowed directing approval of her promotion as Headmistress. Therefore, there is a vacancy of B.T.Assistant(English) in which the petitioner could be accommodated. Challenging both the orders, the present writ appeals have been filed. 3. Contentions of the learned counsels: (i) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1951 of 2023 (The State of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs. Nehru Middle School & another) dated 24.03.2023 and contended that the basic qualification required for being appointed as Headmistress could never be relaxed. Therefore, the relaxation order relied upon by the writ Court are not legally sustainable. Hence, the appointment of the said Jeevitha as Headmistress without completing five years of teaching experience cannot be approved by the authorities. Only when the promotion of the said Jeevitha as Headmistress is approved, a vacancy for the post of B.T.Assistant (English) would arise. Therefore, the direction of the writ Court to approve the appointment of Devi@ Deivanai is also not legally sustainable. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeals. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents in the writ appeals had contended that the Government had issued several order relaxing five years of teaching experience for being appointed as Headmistress/Headmaster. Relying upon the said Government Order, the writ Court was pleased to extend the said benefit to the writ petitioner in W.P(MD).No.15428 of 2020. Therefore, the State cannot have any grievance over the same. When the State had issued the Government Order relaxing the said condition, it would clearly establish the fact that the teaching experience of five years is only a preferable qualification and not a mandatory qualification for being appointed as Headmistress. Therefore, the State cannot have any grievance over the same. When the State had issued the Government Order relaxing the said condition, it would clearly establish the fact that the teaching experience of five years is only a preferable qualification and not a mandatory qualification for being appointed as Headmistress. Therefore, the appointment cannot be considered to be illegal. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the writ Court in both the appeals. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. Discussion: 6. W.A(MD).No.80 of 2022 arises out of an order passed in W.P(MD).No.15428 of 2020 wherein the writ Court had directed the authorities to approve the promotion of one Jeevitha as Headmistress from the post of B.T.Assistant. The petitioner in the said case, namely Jeevitha has been appointed as B.T.Assistant (English) in an aided minority School on 12.08.2015 and promoted as Headmistress on 24.06.2016 in the same School. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was promoted before acquiring five years of teaching experience. 7. As per Rule 15(6) of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974, the teacher and other persons employed in a private School shall possess the qualifications specified in Annexure -V. As per Annexure No.V, for being appointed as a Headmaster of a School, apart from educational qualification, the candidates should have worked as teachers in a recognised School for a period of not less than five years after obtaining B.T. Assistant or its equivalent degree. As per the statutory rules, it is mandatory on the part of the teachers to have five years of teaching experience for being appointed as Headmaster. The said mandatory qualification can never be relaxed by issuance of executive instructions or Government Orders. Therefore, the Government Order issued to the similarly placed persons relaxing the qualification of five years of teaching experience cannot come to the rescue of the writ petitioner. 8. The Writ Court had relied upon G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 for directing the authorities to approve the promotion of the writ petitioner after granting exemption with regard to 5 years of teaching experience. 8. The Writ Court had relied upon G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 for directing the authorities to approve the promotion of the writ petitioner after granting exemption with regard to 5 years of teaching experience. Paragraph No.3 of the said Government Order is extracted as follows: A careful perusal of the said Government Order clearly reveals that exemption with regard to teaching experience of 5 years is not automatic, but it is subject to the following conditions: (a) The concerned candidate who seeks exemption should be the senior most teacher within the same school/school management. (b) No other teacher who is fully qualified should be available within the same school/school management. (c) Only in cases where the teachers who are fully qualified are not available within the school/school management, the school management should approach the employment exchange or going in for a direct recruitment. (d) When fully qualified candidates are not available even through employment exchange/direct recruitment, thereafter exemption could be granted to the concerned teacher with regard to teaching experience of 5 years. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1951 of 2023 (The State of Tamil Nadu & Others Vs. Nehru Middle School & another) dated 24.03.2023 in paragraph Nos.7 & 9 has held as follows: “7. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that for appointment as Head Mistress/Head Master, five years teaching experience as teacher was must. It is also an admitted position that at the time when respondent No.2 was appointed as Head Mistress, she was not having the required teaching experience of five years. That is why even the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order has clarified that respondent No.2 be paid the salary of B.T.Assistant till she completes the requisite five years of experience. Such an order is untenable. Once a candidate who lacks the requisite teaching experience cannot be permitted to continue on the said post on which he/she is appointed on the condition that she may be paid the salary on the lower post till she acquires the requisite experience. Such an order would be giving a premium to an illegal appointment.” “9. Once a candidate who lacks the requisite teaching experience cannot be permitted to continue on the said post on which he/she is appointed on the condition that she may be paid the salary on the lower post till she acquires the requisite experience. Such an order would be giving a premium to an illegal appointment.” “9. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent No.2 relying upon the G.O. issued by State Government on relaxation is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the same shall be applicable only in a case where the other eligible Candidates are not available and/or other eligible candidates have given up their right to be considered for the promotion to the post of Head Mistress/Head Master. In the counter affidavit before the High Court, it was specifical1ly pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the school obtained letters only from the BT Teachers and not from the secondary grade teachers eligible for promotion as Head Master of middle school. In that view of the matter, even reliance placed upon the G.O. on relaxation is absolutely misplaced and the same shall not be of any assistance to the appellants.” 10. In the present case, no documents have been placed on record to establish the fact whether any other fully qualified teacher is available within the school/school management. It is also not known whether any attempt was made to appoint fully qualified teachers through direct recruitment or through employment exchange. In such cases, the concerned teacher or the school management cannot rely upon G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 and seek automatic exemption. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra in paragraph no.9 has categorically found that only in cases where other eligible candidates are not available, the question of relaxation under the Government Order would arise. 11. In the present case, the Writ Court had relied upon G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 and three other Government Orders issued to individual teachers for setting aside the order of non-approval without properly appreciating the fact that the conditions laid down in the above said Government Order have not been fulfilled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case has deprecated the practice of appointing an unqualified teacher as a Headmistress and paying salary of a lesser grade till they acquire the teaching experience. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case has deprecated the practice of appointing an unqualified teacher as a Headmistress and paying salary of a lesser grade till they acquire the teaching experience. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Writ Court is unsustainable in law in view of the fact that neither the school management nor the educational authorities have properly considered the request of the concerned teacher seeking exemption from teaching experience. 12. The appointment of the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.152 of 2021 has not been approved only on the ground that there is no vacancy of B.T Assistant teacher in view of the non-approval of the promotion granted to the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.15428 of 2020. If the authorities take a decision upon the date of approval of the promotion of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No. 15428 of 2020, a consequential order can be passed by the said authorities with regard to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.152 of 2021. 13. In view of the above said deliberations, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders: (i) Both the writ appeals are allowed. The orders of the writ Court in both the writ petitions are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the file of the concerned authorities. (ii) The authorities are directed to consider the proposal forwarded by the school management with regard to the appointment of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.15428 of 2020 as Headmistress in the light of the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001. (iii) The date of approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.152 of 2021 shall be dependent upon the decision of the authorities with regard to the approval of the promotion of the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.15428 of 2020. (iv) The school management shall place all the materials before the educational authorities in order to satisfy whether the school could invoke the exemption under G.O.Ms.No.97 School Education Department, dated 05.07.2001 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (v) The authorities shall pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by this Court within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.