Madras High Court Affirms: Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) Mandatory for Minority Institutions, Overturns Writ Court Order - 2025-04-12

Madras High Court Upholds TET for Minority School Teachers, Setting Aside Single Judge Order

Madurai, India - In a significant judgment delivered on March 12, 2025, a division bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy , overturned a single judge's order, reaffirming that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification is mandatory for teachers in minority educational institutions. The ruling came in the Writ Appeal (W.A(MD)No.231 of 2025) filed by the Director of School Education and other state education officials against Devanagar Higher Secondary School , a private aided linguistic minority institution in Virudhunagar district.

Background of the Case

The case arose from Devanagar Higher Secondary School 's petition seeking approval for the appointment of Mrs. V. Anbuchelvi as a B.T. Assistant (English). The District Educational Officer had rejected the proposal on August 29, 2024, citing Mrs. Anbuchelvi 's lack of TET qualification. The school challenged this decision in a Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.21959 of 2024), arguing that as a linguistic minority institution, it was exempt from the TET requirement based on previous court rulings, particularly relying on a Division Bench judgment in W.A.(MD)No.313 of 2022, which cited the Supreme Court's Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust case. The single judge bench had allowed the writ petition, directing the educational authorities to approve the appointment and grant salary.

Arguments Presented

Appellants (State Education Department): Represented by the Additional Government Pleader, the appellants argued that the rejection was justified due to the candidate not possessing TET. They further highlighted that the issue of TET applicability to minority institutions is currently pending before the Supreme Court, urging the court to allow their appeal.

Respondent ( Devanagar Higher Secondary School ): Represented by Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, the school contended that as a private aided linguistic minority institution, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates TET, does not apply to them. They relied on precedents interpreting Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1, suggesting TET was not required for minority schools.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The division bench meticulously examined the legal arguments and relevant judgments, clarifying the scope of the Supreme Court's rulings in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India . The court explicitly stated that Pramati 's case "had never dealt with the section 23 of RTE Act, 2009 at all," which is the section prescribing teacher qualifications, including TET.

The judgment emphasized that while Pramati held that certain sections of the RTE Act, particularly those related to reservation and admissions (Sections 12(1)(c) and 18(3)), were not applicable to minority institutions to protect their Article 30(1) rights, it did not exempt minority institutions from all provisions of the RTE Act, especially those concerning teacher qualifications under Section 23.

The bench further cited the landmark eleven-judge bench ruling in T.M.A. Pai Foundation case , underscoring that even for minority institutions, "the State or other controlling authorities...can always prescribe the minimum qualifications, salaries, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher of an educational institution."

> "When the Constitutional Bench of Eleven Judges had held that the government is empowered to prescribe educational qualifications to teachers to be appointed in any schools including minority institutions and the same still holds good, then the TET qualifications prescribed for teachers is applicable to all schools including minority institutions."

The court also pointed out the discriminatory implications of exempting minority institutions from TET, leading to disparities between teachers in minority and non-minority schools regarding job security and promotion prospects. It highlighted the practical administrative challenges faced by the Education Department in managing surplus teachers due to this differentiation.

Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the Madras High Court allowed the Writ Appeal, setting aside the single judge's order. The court firmly concluded that "TET qualification is applicable to all educational institutions including minority institutions also."

This judgment clarifies the legal position in Tamil Nadu, asserting that minority institutions are not exempt from the TET requirement for teacher appointments. It reinforces the state's authority to ensure uniform teacher quality standards across all schools, regardless of minority status, and has significant implications for teacher recruitment and service conditions in minority educational institutions. The ruling also addresses concerns about potential discrimination and administrative difficulties arising from differential application of TET.

The court stated that the educational department cannot be directed to grant approval for appointments of candidates lacking TET qualification, thereby upholding the initial rejection of Mrs. V. Anbuchelvi 's appointment.