JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 14.06.2014 as contained in memo No. 1447 issued by the respondent No.6; whereby he has returned the proposed settlement of the 5 newly appointed teachers of the petitioner’s school showing false and malicious allegations. And Further writ for quashing the order dated 03.06.2014 as contained in memo no. 1344 issued by the Respondent No.6 to give their reply on the enquiry report. And Further for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction directing the concerned respondents to immediately disburse the grant, by way of salary, to the newly five appointed teachers. AND Further to take appropriate action against the respondents for playing fraud with the court. AND Further writ for quashing of part of order dated 20/1/2014 as contained in memo 184 whereby the petitioner has been directed to take appropriate action against the said appointment. AND Further writ directing the concerned respondents not to take coercive action against the teachers. And/Or Any other appropriate writ(s) be issued, order(s) be passed and direction (s) be made as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 3. It appears from the pleadings that the Petitioner is a Government Aided Minority School. Vide Memorandum No.77 dated 06.01.1981, the Petitioner-School was recognized as a Government Aided Minority School. The State Government sanctions posts of Teaching & Non- Teaching Staffs in Government Aided Minority Institutions and it is the prerogative of the School Management to make appointments against the said sanctioned posts. However, such appointment is required to be approved by the State Government through the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand. 4. The State Government has been issuing guidelines from time to time and as per the Circular dated 03.02.1971, it was clarified that the State authorities would not interfere with in the process of appointment of teaching and non-teaching employees in a minority school; however, the State Government would be competent to prescribe the qualification of the teachers to be appointed in minority schools. 5. The fact further reveals that when 06 posts of teachers had fallen vacant in the Petitioner-School, an advertisement was issued by the school inviting applications from qualified candidates on 14.07.2007. Subsequently, several applications were received and 44 eligible candidates were called for interview on 18.05.2012. 5. The fact further reveals that when 06 posts of teachers had fallen vacant in the Petitioner-School, an advertisement was issued by the school inviting applications from qualified candidates on 14.07.2007. Subsequently, several applications were received and 44 eligible candidates were called for interview on 18.05.2012. After interview, the Selection Committee recommended for appointment of 05 teachers against the advertised vacancies, namely, (i) Jyoti Jha, having qualification of M.Sc. (B.Ed.) (ii) Akansha Dubey, having qualification of M.Sc. (B.Ed.) (iii) Rekha Mandal, having qualification of M.Sc. (B.Ed.) (iv) Ishita Paharia having qualification of M.Sc. (B.Ed.) and also (v) a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. 6. On the basis of the said recommendation, appointment letters were also issued to all candidates on 22.03.2012. Subsequently, the entire records relating to the 05 appointments were sent to the Respondents-authorities through the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad for approval of their appointments. Admittedly, all the appointments were made against vacant sanctioned posts and all the appointees fulfilled the minimum prescribed criteria. However, vide letter no.2327 dated 16.06.2012, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad informed the Secretary of the Petitioner-School that on 18.06.2012, an enquiry with respect to appointment of 05 teachers would be done by the Regional Director, Directorate of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. The Petitioner-School through its Secretary appeared before the said authority and submitted all documents before the concerned authority, but when despite thereof; no decision was taken, a reminder was sent vide letter dated 09.08.2012. 7. Thereafter, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dhanbad vide letter No. 447 dated 17.08.2012 raised the following objections:- (i) Against 06 vacancies advertised, only 05 appointments were made. (ii) Against 05 appointments made, 44 candidates were called for interview and accordingly directed the School Management to submit a clarification. The School Manage vide letter dated 28.08.2012 submitted a clarification that all appointments have been made against vacant sanctioned post and they requested for grant of approval of the 05 teachers. On receipt of the said letter, the Regional Education Officer, Dhanbad again made a query as to why approval has been sought for appointment of 05 teachers only. The School Management again submitted their clarification vide letter dated 07.09.2012. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad vide Memo No.3665 dated 29.11.2012 rejected the proposal of all the 05 teachers. 8. On receipt of the said letter, the Regional Education Officer, Dhanbad again made a query as to why approval has been sought for appointment of 05 teachers only. The School Management again submitted their clarification vide letter dated 07.09.2012. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad vide Memo No.3665 dated 29.11.2012 rejected the proposal of all the 05 teachers. 8. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 785 of 2013 and this Court vide its order dated 09.12.2013 directed the District Superintendent of Education to appear in person before this Court. Pursuant thereof, the District Superintendent of Education vide Memo No.184 dated 20.01.2014 acknowledged that the proposal for grant of approval of appointment was required to be sent to the Directorate and could not be rejected at this stage and proceeded to recall Memo No.9665 dated 29.11.2012. 9. In view of the said order as contained in Memo No.184 dated 20.01.2014, the writ application became infructuous and was accordingly disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2014. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad vide Memo No.1447 dated 14.06.2014 returned the proposal for approval of all the 05 teachers by raising the following objections: (i) Against 05 vacancies, in place of 15-20 candidates, 44 candidates were called for interview. (ii) The average of the valuation sheet was not taken and the final merit list was prepared on the basis of the principal’s valuation. (iii) Lack of transparency. This apart, it has also been mentioned that guidelines of NCTE as contained in notification dated 23.08.2010 has not been followed, though nothing specific was mentioned. 10. Being aggrieved by the said Memo No.1447 dated 14.06.2014 (Annexure 18), the Petitioner has moved this Court in the instant case. 11. Law in this regard is well settled that the right of making appointment in a Government Aided Minority School vests with the Management of the School. The State Government can only prescribe eligibility criteria and at the time of approval, it is required to verify whether the teacher appointed fulfill the eligibility criteria as provided by the school. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 224 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 7. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society v. State of West Bengal & Others, (2004) 6 SCC 224 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 7. But that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. It is categorically stated in T.M.A. Pai (2002) 8 SCC 481 (SCC at p. 551, para 72) that the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. Independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution. The State can very well provide the basic qualification for teachers. Under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the University Grants Commission (UGC) had laid down qualifications to a teaching post in a university by passing Regulations. As per these Regulations UGC conducts National Eligibility Test (NET) for determining teaching eligibility of candidates. UGC has also authorised accredited States to conduct State-Level Eligibility Test (SLET). Only a person who has qualified NET or SLET will be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an aided institution. This is the required basic qualification for a teacher. The petitioners' right to administer includes the right to appoint teachers of their choice among the NET-/SLET-qualified candidates. 8. Argument on behalf of the State that the appointment through the College Service Commission is to maintain the equal standard of education all throughout the State of West Bengal, does not impress us. The equal standard of teachers are already maintained by NET/SLET. Similarly, receiving aid from State coffers can also not be treated as a justification for imposition of any restrictions that cannot be imposed otherwise. 9. Both sides rely on the passages quoted above from the judgment in T.M.A. Pai (2002) 8 SCC 481 to project their respective contentions. 10. When a larger Bench consisting of eleven Judges of this Court in T.M.A. Pai (2002) 8 SCC 481 has declared what the law on the matter is, we do not want to dilute the effect of the same by analysing various statements made therein or indulge in any dissection of the principles underlying it. 10. When a larger Bench consisting of eleven Judges of this Court in T.M.A. Pai (2002) 8 SCC 481 has declared what the law on the matter is, we do not want to dilute the effect of the same by analysing various statements made therein or indulge in any dissection of the principles underlying it. We would rather state that the State Government shall take note of the declarations of law made by this Court in this regard and make suitable amendments to their laws, rules and regulations to bring them in conformity with the principles set out therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 386 has held as under:- 21. We may also recapitulate the extent of regulation by the State, permissible in respect of employees of minority educational institutions receiving aid from the State, as clarified and crystallised in T.M.A. Pai (2002) 8 SCC 481 . The State can prescribe: (i) the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit, for making appointments, (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, (iii) a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the employees, (iv) the conditions for the proper utilisation of the aid by the educational institutions, without abridging or diluting the right to establish and administer educational institutions. In other words, all laws made by the State to regulate the administration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority institutions. 12. So far as the guidelines of 2010 are concerned, the said guidelines have been issued in exercise of powers under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 12. So far as the guidelines of 2010 are concerned, the said guidelines have been issued in exercise of powers under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India, 2014 (2) JLJR (SC) 505 have held that the Act of 2009 is inapplicable to aided and unaided minority schools and this Court in the case of Naveen Praveen Kindo & Another v. State of Jharkhand and Others, W.P. (S) No. 4995 of 2013, have also held that the guidelines of NCTE as contained in Memorandum dated 23.08.2010 are inapplicable to Government Aided Minority Schools. 13. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, the rejection of the proposal for grant of approval of the 05 appointments made by the Petitioner-School vide Memo No.1447 dated 14.06.2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Further, the concerned respondents are directed to immediately disburse the grant, by way of salary, to the newly five appointed teachers. 14. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A. if any also stands disposed of.