BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.09.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.A(MD)No.2694 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.15252 of 2025

1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

2.The District Educational Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Madurai West, Anaiyur, Madurai District. ... Appellants/Respondents 1 to 3 Vs.

1.A.Nansi ... 1^st Respondent/Writ Petitioner

2.The Correspondent, R.C. Middle School, K.Pudur, Madurai, Madurai District – 625 007. ... 2^nd Respondent/4^th Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.27466 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R – 1 : Ms.A.Amala

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the State challenging order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned single Judge.

2.R1 is the writ petitioner and she had sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the grant of approval of her appointment on and from the date on which she has passed the TET examination, and seeking a consequential direction to the appellants to approve her appointment as B.T Assistant (Maths) with effect from 04.07.2018, date of her joining the R.C Middle School, K.Pudur, Madurai (‘school’), with disbursal of grant-in-aid towards salary and other monetary benefits.

3.The Writ Petition came to be allowed, learned Judge applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs. Union of India¹ consistently followed by various Courts, including this Court in The Director of School Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai 06 and two others Vs Velayutham and another²

4.We have heard the detailed submissions of both Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Ms.A.Amala, learned counsel appearing for R1. The School is not represented. Both learned counsel would accede to the position that we have had occasion to consider their arguments on this very issue recently in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St George, Chennai - 600 009 and 3 others Vs. S.Rathnabala and another³ and that the order passed in that case would apply in the present matter as well. The relevant portion of that order reads thus:

1 (2018) 8 SCC 1

2 (2023) (3) LW 112

3 W.A(MD)No.2592 of 2025, dated 10.09.2025 '. . . .

10.As far as the issue of TET eligibility is concerned, the present position in law is that no faculty member in a minority institution is required to undergo the rigour of the TET, as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs. Union of India (2018) 8 SCC 1 consistently followed by various Courts, including this Court. The operative portion of the Judgment is as follows:

“55. When we look at the 2009 Act, we find that Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 2(n) (iii) provides that an aided school receiving aid and grants, whole or part, of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority has to provide free and compulsory education to such proportion of children admitted therein as its annual recurring aid or grants so received bears to its annual recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of twenty-five per cent. Thus, a minority aided school is put under a legal obligation to provide free and compulsory elementary education to children who need not be children of members of the minority community which has established the school. We also find that under Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 2(n)(iv), an unaided school has to admit into twenty-five per cent of the strength of class I children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood. Hence, unaided minority schools will have