SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
P.T. ASHA, J.
V.Kirubanandam - Petitioner 
Versus
The Director, Elementary Education Department – Respondent
W.P.T. ASHA W.P.No.32124 of 2024 
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.R.Subramanian for Mr.B.Ravi
For the Respondents: Ms.Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader, Mr.T.Sezhian

Dual degrees via distance education in different timelines (academic/calendar years) without simultaneity qualify for teacher appointment.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged rejection of appointment as BT Assistant citing dual degrees obtained via distance education and non-mandate of TET for minority institutions. Relevant G.O.Ms.No.165, Rule 28(2) of Tamil Nadu Private Schools Rules 2023, UGC National Education Policy 2020 guidelines permitting non-overlapping full-time and distance programs were analyzed. Court found petitioner eligible as degrees pursued in academic and calendar years without simultaneity. Issue: Whether dual degrees obtained non-simultaneously disqualify for BT Assistant post. Ratio: 'Simultaneously' implies same time; courses in different timelines (July 2019-May 2022 BA History academic year; Jan 2020-Jan 2022 B.Ed calendar year) do not violate Full Bench ruling in 2021 SCC Online Mad 17024 prohibiting same academic year dual degrees. Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; respondents directed to approve appointment and disburse benefits.

Table of Content
1. appointment proposal rejected due to surplus teachers, dual degrees, tet. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. ugc policy permits non-simultaneous dual programs via distance education. (Para 4 , 5 , 9)
3. rejection grounds: simultaneous degrees, tet; countered by timeline differences. (Para 6 , 7)
4. degrees not simultaneous: academic vs calendar year timelines. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. distinguishes prior rulings; allows appointment absent same-year simultaneity. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

ORDER :

P.T. ASHA, J.

The above writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.2203/A6/2024 dated 15.10.2024 and consequently to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as B.T Assistant in the 6th respondent-School and to disburse all attendant benefits.

2. The brief facts which have given rise to the above writ petition are as follows:

(i) On 01.02.2024, the petitioner was appointed as B.T Assistant (History) in the 6th respondent School and he had joined the services of the School on the very same day. On 01.02.2024, a proposal for the approval of his appointment was forwarded by the 6th respondent to the 5th respondent along with a covering letter. A copy of the same was also marked to the 4th respondent. By proceedings dated 03.04.2024, the 5th respondent had called for the following clarifications:

(a) As per the approved workload, 9 posts of secondary grade teachers had been sanctioned and as per the student strength, 5 teachers could be appointed directly, while 3 of them are surplus.

(b)The surplus teachers were to be promoted and there could be no direct appointment in view of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 17.09.2019 .

(c) Since the school is under the control of IELC, which has other institutions under its umbrella, a certificate should be obtained that there was no surplus history B.T. Assistants in other institutions under the control of IELC.

(d) The petitioner had completed B.A(History) during the academic period July 2019-May 2022 and B.Ed Diploma during the period January 2020 – July 2022. Therefore since he had completed B.A (History) and B.Ed in the same year, he is not eligible.

(e) As per G.O.Ms.243 , B.T Assistant post should be filled up only from Secondary Grade Teachers and in the absence of the qualified teachers, the appointment has to be made through the Teachers Recruitment Board.

3. The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to each of the queries raised by the 5th respondent. In the explanation dated 12.04.2024, the petitioner had stated as follows:

a) The three surplus Senior Grade Teachers were not eligible for promotion as they are graduates in Tamil (B.A Tamil).

(b) There is no surplus B.T Assistant Teacher(History) in any of the Schools under the control of IELC.

(c) Passing of TET is not mandatory for minority institution, as per the order passed in W.A.No.313 of 2002.

(d) The petitioner had completed B.A(History) and M.A (English) and thereafter he had completed B.A History and B.Ed., from different universities during different period of time.

(e) If a candidate undergoes the distance education course at different timings but during the same academic year, he or she would be eligible for promotion.

(f) The Secondary Grade Teachers do not qualify for promotion.

(g) Recruitment through the Teacher Recruitment Board is not applicable to minority institutions.

Therefore, in the light of the above explanation the 6th respondent had requested the 1st respondent to approve and release the salary.

4. The University Grants Commission had come forward with the National Education Policy, 2020 in April 2022, wherein certain guidelines were issued under the said Policy.

a) A student can undergo two full time academic programme in physical mode provided that the class timings do not overlap.

b) A student can simultaneously pursue full time academic programme in physical mode and another through distance education.

c) A Degree / Diploma Programme can be pursued on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top