TET Qualification Mandatory For Teachers In Minority Institutions; Pramati Judgment Doesn't Exempt Them From S. 23 of RTE Act: Madras High Court - 2025-07-21

Madras High Court Rules TET Mandatory for Teachers in Minority Institutions

Chennai, TN – In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for educational standards, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a mandatory qualification for teachers appointed in all schools, including private aided and unaided minority institutions.

A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice S. Srimathy set aside a single judge's order, clarifying that the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust did not grant a blanket exemption to minority institutions from the entirety of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

The judgment came in a writ appeal filed by the Director of School Education challenging a single judge's direction to approve the appointment of a B.T. Assistant (English) at the Devanagar Higher Secondary School, a linguistic minority institution, despite the candidate not possessing a TET qualification.

---

Background of the Case

The Devanagar Higher Secondary School, a private aided linguistic minority institution in Virudhunagar District, appointed Mrs. V. Anbuchelvi as a B.T. Assistant on August 14, 2024. The school's proposal for approval was returned by the District Educational Officer on August 29, 2024, citing the candidate's lack of TET qualification.

The school challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that as a minority institution protected under Article 30 of the Constitution, the RTE Act, and consequently the TET requirement, did not apply to them. They relied on previous High Court judgments which, in turn, cited the Supreme Court's decision in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Others Vs. Union of India (2014) . The single judge accepted this contention and ordered the approval of the appointment. The State education authorities subsequently appealed this order.

---

Arguments Presented

Appellants (State Education Dept.): The State argued that the proposal was rightly returned as the candidate lacked the mandatory TET qualification. They contended that the reliance on the Pramati judgment was misplaced, as the issue of TET applicability was not directly considered in that case. They also highlighted that the core issue remains sub judice before the Supreme Court in other matters.

Respondent (The School): The school reiterated its stance that the RTE Act is not applicable to minority institutions, and therefore, TET, a qualification prescribed under the Act, cannot be insisted upon. They pointed to a consistent line of High Court judgments holding this view.

---

Court's Analysis: Distinguishing 'Pramati' and Upholding 'T.M.A. Pai'

The Division Bench undertook a detailed analysis of the legal framework and key Supreme Court precedents. The court observed that the Pramati case primarily dealt with the validity of Constitutional amendments (Article 15(5) and 21A) and the applicability of provisions related to the 25% reservation for weaker sections (Sections 12(1)(b) and 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act) to minority schools.

The court emphatically stated that the Pramati judgment never examined or ruled upon Section 23 of the RTE Act, which specifically deals with the qualifications for teachers. The bench held:

“When the Constitutional Bench in Pramati’s case had specifically dealt with Article 15(5) and Article 21A read with sections 12(1)(b), 12(1)(c) ... and when the Constitutional Bench in Pramati’s had never dealt with section 23 of RTE Act, 2009... then it is absolutely incorrect to say that in Pramati’s case it has been held that “TET is not applicable to minority institution”.”

The court further reinforced its reasoning by citing the eleven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation , which unequivocally established the State's power to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers in all educational institutions, including minority ones, to ensure excellence in education. The bench quoted:

“The State or other controlling authorities, however 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.”

---

Discrimination and Administrative Hurdles

The bench also highlighted the discriminatory outcome of exempting minority institutions from the TET requirement. It noted that such an exemption creates two classes of teachers and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

“If the TET is mandated to non-minority schools alone and TET is dispensed with minority schools, then a clear discrimination prevails... teachers in non-minority institutions are either losing job or losing their promotion without TET. But the teachers in minority institutions are granted appointments, salary... without TET, thereby it is clear discrimination and the same is against Article 14.”

The court also pointed out the administrative problems this creates, such as the inability to redeploy surplus teachers from minority schools (without TET) to non-minority or government schools.

---

Final Decision

Concluding that TET is a statutory qualification prescribed under a Central Act by an authorized academic body (NCTE), the court ruled that no institution is exempt. It held that the State government has no power to grant such exemptions, as any amendment to the RTE Act can only be made by the Parliament.

Allowing the State's appeal, the court set aside the single judge's order and upheld the education department's decision to refuse approval for the teacher's appointment due to the lack of a TET certificate.