The court reinforces that Teacher Eligibility Test is essential for teachers in state-funded minority institutions pending legal resolution on its applicability.

O R D E R

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 16.11.2020, issued by the second respondent, which mandate the qualification of TET as a perquisite for granting approval to the petitioner's proposal.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she obtained her M.A.(English) in the year 1996 and completed Diploma in Teach Education in the year 2007. Subsequently, a Secondary Grade (S.G.) post became vacant due to the transfer of Mr.Y.Edward, Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent School. Against this vacancy, the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 02.07.2019. Thereafter, considering that the third respondent School is a minority institution with the right to administer and appoint staff under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India , the Management in accordance with staff fixation norms, forwarded a proposal to the respondents seeking approval of the petitioner's appointment. However, the second respondent, by the impugned order dated 16.11.2020, rejected the proposal on the ground that the petitioner has not possessed the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) pass certificate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's proposal was returned mainly on two grounds that the petitioner does not possess TET qualification certificate and secondly, that surplus teachers are available under the Corporate Management and the vacancy was not filled through redeployment. It is submitted that the third respondent school is a minority institution. As held in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India , reported in(2014) 8 SCC 1, requirement of TET qualification cannot be enforced upon the minority institution for the appointment of Teachers in the minority school. Further, there is no material evidence to establish the availability of surplus teachers under the Corporate Management. Even the present proposal was forwarded to fill the vacancy that arose due to the transfer of Mr.Y.Edward, Secondary School Teacher. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 has submitted a counter-affidavit dated 22.08.2025. He would submit that the petitioner seeks to approve the appointment with effect from 01.07.2019. The respondent school is eligible for one Headmaster, one B.T.Assistant (Tamil), three Secondary Grade Teachers, totally 5 teachers as on 2024 – 2025. The third respondent appointed two persons in the same post, namely, the writ petitioner herein and Dulcy Graseline. The said Dulcy Graseline filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.18690 of 2025 seeking approval of her appointment, which is also pending before this Court. Insofar as the mandatory provision of TET qualification, the third respondent school is a minority institution and receiving Government aid and therefore, the requirement of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is applicable. It is necessary to extract the relevant portions of the counter-affidavit filed by the District Educational Officer (Elementary), dated 22.08.2025 to understand the grounds on which the proposal forwarded by the school management was rejected: “4....The 3rd respondent school eligible for one Headmaster, one B.T. Assistant (Tamil), three Secondary Grade Teacher totally 5 teachers as on 2024 – 2025. The 3rd respondent appointed two persons in the same post one is writ petitioner another person is Dulcy Graseline. The said Dulcy Graseline filed writ petition before this Honourable Co