ORDER :

By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a B.T. Assistant in the 6th respondent School on 01.09.2010 in the vacancy that arose due to promotion of an erstwhile teacher. It is stated that the petitioner was thereafter employed with the 7th respondent School, where she is now working as a B.T. Assistant. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Educational Officer, Chennai, who is the 5th respondent herein, through proceedings dated 26.09.2014, approving the petitioner's appointment with effect from 07.09.2010. By the impugned order dated 26.09.2014, the 5th respondent herein had taken into consideration the objections of the Director of School Education and stated that the petitioner herein, since has not qualified herself in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), would not be entitled for the annual increments and other additional allowances and therefore has directed for recovery of these monetary benefits. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been considered by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, which was subsequently followed in other cases also, including the case in R.Kumar and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education in W.P.(MD) Nos.8168 and 8169 of 2017 dated 23.09.2019. It is his further submission that the National Counsel of Teacher Education (NCTE) has also amended the minimum qualification for these teachers, through a notification dated 29.07.2011, by which, it is clarified that the teachers appointed, prior to the date of this notification, need not qualify themselves with the TET Examination.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 placed reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that the Director of School Education has issued circulars to all Inspecting Officers to the effect that the teachers appointed in these schools prior to 31.03.2019 without teacher's eligibility qualification test, would not be entitled for the monetary benefits. In view of these objections, the present impugned order has been passed, which does not require any interference.

5. Mr. J.Narayanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent adopted the arguments made by the learned Government Counsel.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the issue with regard to requirement of the possession of TET Examination came up for consideration before this Court in the case of R.Kumar and another (supra) and this Court had taken into account the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and had ultimately held that the teachers, who were appointed as B.T. Assistants prior to the issuance of G.O. Ms.No.181, cannot be compelled to pass the TET Examination. The relevant portion of the order reads thus :-

"4. According to the petitioners, the respondents are compelling the petitioners for appearing Teachers Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as 'TET') examination to be held on 29.04.2017. The petitioners submitted that when they were appointed on 27.12.2010, there was no requirement of pass in TET examination for appointment. The National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE') has issued a notification, dated 23.08.2010, laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII. The first respondent issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2011, making the TET as mandatory for all the teachers, who are working within the State. The Government first time conducted TET examination in the month of July, 2012 and the results were published only in the month of August, 2012.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this