Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Cor on 22 December, 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)Nos.2243 and 2244 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11122 and 11123 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramnad, Ramnad District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi, Ramnad District. : Appellants/Respondents
in both Writ Appeals
.vs.
The Correspondent,
Hyrathul Jamalia Higher Secondary School,
Paramakudi,
Ramnad District. : Respondent/Writ
Petitioner
in both Writ Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the order passed by
this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.18950 and 18951 of 2013, dated
18.07.2016.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbaraj
in both W.As' Special Government Pleader
COMMON JUDGMENT
****************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
These writ appeals are filed against the orders passed by this
Court in W.P(MD)Nos.18950 and 18951 of 2013, dated 18.07.2016,
filed by the respondent/writ petitioner.
2.The case of the writ petitioner/respondent school herein is
that the petitioner/respondent is an aided minority school and the
respondent school appointed two teachers, namely, R.I.Asiah Jailani
and Mrs.P.Benazir as B.T.Assistant on 21.09.2012 The District
Educational Officer/4th appellant herein, approved the appointment
of the said teachers on 16.10.2002 itself. Subsequently, based on
G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2) Department, dated
15.11.2021 issued by the Government, second respondent has been
directed to instruct all the District Educational Officers including the
fourth respondent to cancel the orders of approval of appointment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in respect of 499 teachers, who had not passed the Teacher
Eligibility Test (TET) and therefore, the fourth respondent cancelled
the approval of the said teachers, Mr.R.I.Asiath Jailani and
Mrs.P.Benazir vide order, dated 18.11.2013. Challenging the said
orders of the cancellation passed by the fourth respondent, the writ
petitioner/respondent school filed a writ petitions before this Court.
3.The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments
considered the materials and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the case of W.A.No.1299 of 2015,
dated 14,09.2015, allowed the writ petitions and directed the
respondents to give salary to the Petitioners herein in the course of
their employment and no steps to remove them from service shall
be taken. Now, challenging the said order passed by this Court,
dated 18.07.2016, the appellants/respondents filed the present writ
appeals before this Court.
4.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the appellants and perused the materials placed before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.It is not in dispute that the respondent school is an aided
minority school and that the respondent school appointed two
teachers, namely, R.I.Asiah Jailani and Mrs.P.Benazir as
B.T.Assistants on 21.09.2012 and it is not in dispute that the
appointment of the said teachers was approved by the District
Educational Officer/4th appellant herein. Subsequently, since the
said teachers did not pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and
hence, their appointment was cancelled by the fourth appellant as
per the instruction given by the second respondent based on the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2)
Department, dated 15.11.2011.
6.The main contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants is that since the said teachers
did not get through the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and they have
not complied with the Government directions, their appointments
were subsequently cancelled among other teachers about 499
teachers. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the same and
dispose of the writ petitions with certain directions. Hence, the
appellants have preferred the present writ appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent school
would submit that the issue is covered under the earlier decisions of
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.213 and 572
of 2016, dated 24.08.2016, W.A.No.948 of 2018, dated
13.12.2018 and W.A.No.948 of 2018, dated 13.12.2018.
Therefore, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181, School
Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011 is not applicable to
the respondent/school, since the respondent/school is a minority
school.
8.We have considered the submissions on either side and
perused the records.
9.Admittedly, the respondent school is an aided minority
school and therefore, the said subject was dealt with by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Savarimuthi Maria
George Vs. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar District and others [W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2018].
For approving all the teachers appointed by the minority school, the
Teacher Eligibility Test is not necessary. Therefore, the learned
Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions, in which, the relevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
paragraph of the said decision is extracted hereunder:-
“...4.The issue involved in this case already came up
for consideration before several Division Benches of this
Court and it has been consistently held that G.O.Ms.No.181
is not applicable to the minority institutions and therefore,
the respondents cannot insists the teachers working in
minority institution to have TET qualification. In a recent
decision in P.Savarimuthu Maria George v. The District
Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District
& Others, (W.A.(MD) No.948 of 2018), a Division Bench
of this Court has noted all the decisions on this issue and
allowed the appeal filed by a Teacher. For better
appreciation, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“4.Shortly after the disposal of the Writ
Petition which is the subject matter of this appeal, a
Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to
Government, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai -vs- S. Jeyalakshmi [(2016) 5 CTC 639],
held in paragraph Nos. 39 and 40, as follows:-
“39.In the decision relied upon by the
Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in
Ashwini Thanappan -vs- Director of Education
[(2014) 8 SCC 272], the issue that arose for
consideration related to the interpretation of Article
27. The matter was referred to the Bench of
appropriate strength for further examination. Since
the Learned Counsel submitted that the Judgment
in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
inconsistent with the Judgment of the Constitution
Bench in P.A. Inamdar -vs- State of
Maharashtra [(2005) 6 SCC 537]. The matter is
pending consideration.
40. In view of the above, the contention of
the Learned Additional Advocate General that the
order of the Learned Single Judge directing the
release of salary is not sustainable, in view of the
reference of Ashwini Thanappan case to the
Bench of appropriate strength, cannot be accepted,
since the issue in P.A. Inamdar is with respect
quota of admission of students in the unaided
professional institutions, entrance test and fee
structure. Therefore, the outcome of Ashwini
Thanappan has nothing to do with the case on
hand.”
It would also be relevant to refer the following
paragraphs in that Judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court:-
“52. However, the Government, before
issuing G.O. Ms.No. 181 dated 15.11.2011, lost
sight of one important fact, namely imposition of a
condition on the Teachers, who were appointed
prior to the issue of G.O., in non minority Schools,
both aided and unaided, to qualify themselves with
TET within a period of five years, in order to
continue in service, would cause great hardship to
them. Moreover, if the Teachers who have put in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
more number of years of service, could not pass
TET within five years, their contribution in service
would be in jeopardy. Further, it is seen that the
percentage of pass in the TET examination
conducted in 2012 and 2013 was very minimal.
56. We are, therefore, of the considered
view that the Government may seek a clarification
from the NCTE, in the light of what is stated in the
preceding paragraph, whether the prescription of
minimum qualification of TET can be made
applicable prospectively for the Teachers who were
appointed subsequent to the date of issue of G.O.,
in both non minority and minority institutions and
not retrospectively as the same would cause undue
hardship to the Teachers who have been serving for
a quite a long time.
58. In our opinion, non qualifying in TET by
the Teachers already in service should not defeat
the object of the Government to provide quality and
standard education and therefore, the Government
may, in the alternative, conduct a refresher course
and also some interactive sessions during annual
vacation, in order to ensure and enhance the quality
of education.
60.In the light of the above, we are of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
view that the Government cannot insist upon the
minority institution, both aided or unaided, to abide
by any Regulation framed under the provisions of
the RTE Act. Therefore, we hold that G.O. Ms. No.
181, School Education (C2) Department dated
15.11.2011 issued by the Government of Tamil
Nadu, is not applicable to the minority institutions.
62. However, keeping in mind the larger
interest in which the Government has issued the
above G.O.s, this Court feels that the minority
institutions may also consider conducting a
refresher course and also some interactive sessions
to all the Teachers during annual vacation, in order
to ensure and improve the quality of Teachers.”
The resultant effect of that decision is that it
is not necessary for teachers in schools run by aided
minority institutions to secure a pass in Teacher
Eligibility Test for approving their appointment. The
said view has been reiterated by the subsequent
decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in K.
Solomon Jeyaraj -vs- Secretary, Department
of School Education (Judgment dated 25.11.2016
in W.A. (MD) No. 1437 of 2016), Y. Kanagaraj
-vs- State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment dated
16.06.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 724 of 2017) and K.
Anita -vs- State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26.02.2018 in W.A. (MD) No. 1090 of 2017)”
10.In view of the same, the writ appeals fail and the same
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[P.S.N.,J.] [P.V.,J.]
22.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the order that
is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
vsn
COMMON 0RDER MADE IN
W.A(MD)Nos.2243 and 2244 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11122 and 11123 of 2021
22.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
