Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
H Thahera Begum – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil – Respondent
WA 3014 2023
TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET) - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - MINORITY SCHOOLS - [TET is not a mandatory requirement for teachers appointed in minority schools, both aided and unaided. However, for teachers appointed in non-minority schools, TET is a mandatory requirement for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant/Graduate Teacher from the cadre of Secondary Grade Teacher (already in service).]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were appointed as B.T. Assistants in a non-minority school prior to 29.07.2011. They were denied annual increments on the ground that they did not possess a pass in TET. They challenged this decision in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that TET is not a mandatory requirement for teachers appointed prior to 29.07.2011, even if they do not possess/acquire a pass in TET. However, for future promotional prospects, they must necessarily possess TET.
Issues: Whether TET is a mandatory requirement for teachers appointed in non-minority schools prior to 29.07.2011.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India, [(2014) 8 SCC 1], wherein it was held that the RTI Act, 2009 insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under Article 30(1) is ultravires the Constitution.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the lower court and directed the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the appellants in the light of the directions specified in the judgment dated 02.06.2023.
W.A.Nos.3014 & 3023 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 28.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.Nos.3014 & 3023 of 2023
and
C.M.P.Nos.24980 & 25015 of 2023
H.Thahera Begum,
D/o. R.Himamsha,
B.T.Assistant (Science),
A.J.S. Nidhi Higher Secondary School,
Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
..
Appellant in
W.A.No.3014 of 2023
P.J.Punitha,
D/o.B.Janakiraman,
B.T.Assistant (Tamil),
A.J.S. Nidhi Higher Secondary School,
Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
..
Appellant in
W.A.No.3023 of 2023
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented
by its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3014 & 3023 of 2023
2.The Commissioner,
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chengalpet, Chengalpet District.
4.The District Educational Officer
Chrompet Education District, Chengalpet District.
5.The Secretary,
AJS Nidhi Higher Secondary School,
Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
6.The Union of India represented
by its Secretary, Ministry of Education,
124-C Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110 001.
..
Respondents in
both appeals
Common Prayer:
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the common order dated 07.04.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.2126
& 2128 of 2022 respectively, on the file of this Court.
For Appellants
in both appeals
: Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For Respondents
in both appeals
: Mr.Silambannan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha,
Special Government Pleader
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3014 & 3023 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgement of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
These writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 07.04.2022
passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.2126 of 2022 and 2128 of 2022,
respectively.
2.The necessary facts leading to the filing of these writ appeals would
run thus:
2.1.
The appellant in W.A.No.3014 of 2023 was appointed as
B.T. Assistant (Science) vide order dated 22.09.2011 and she joined duty in
the fifth respondent School on the same day, ie., on 22.09.2011. The
appellant in W.A.No.3023 of 2011 was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Tamil)
on 27.06.2011 in the fifth respondent school. While so, they have been
suddenly stopped the payment of annual increment in the post of
B.T. Assistant during the year 2019 on the premise that they have to pass
Teachers Eligibility Test (“TET” in short). The grievance of the appellants is
that TET cannot be insisted as per G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education
Department dated 15.11.2011 in respect of appointments already made prior
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3014 & 3023 of 2023
to the aforesaid Government Order and also duly approved by the
Department and therefore, insisting upon passing of TET is totally arbitrary
and unreasonable. With this background, they have filed writ petitions
praying to direct the authorities to sanction annual increment to them for
having acquired Post Graduation, without reference to passing of TET with
all consequential and other attendant benefits based on their representations
dated 01.11.2021.
2.2.
Referring to the constitutional validity of the Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act” in short),
Notification of the Government of India dated 31.03.2010 issued under
Section 23(1) of the RTE Act and the Guidelines framed by the National
Council for Teacher Education, the Writ Court held that accepting the
recommendation and the Notification issued by the NCTE, the Government
of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011, which G.O.
makes it very clear that TET shall be conducted by the Teachers
Recruitment Board in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE and
that it has been sta
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
