Madras High Court
M.Velayutham vs The Director Of School Education on 29 July, 2021
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.23851 & 23852 of 2019
W.P.No.23999 of 2019
M.Velayutham ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Chengalpattu Education District,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Secretary,
Jaigopal Garodia National
Higher Secondary School,
East Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 059. ... Respondents
In W.P.No.24003 of 2019
A.Choodamani ... Petitioner
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Campus,
Gengureddy Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Chennai East, Chennai – 600 094.
4.The Secretary,
K.Ramiah Chetty ARC Girls Higher Secondary School,
New No.26 (Old No.38),
Saivamuthiya Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.23999 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from insisting passing of
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for the petitioner appointed as
B.T.Assistant (English) in 4th respondent school on 15.06.2011, prior
to G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated 15.11.2011
and consequently direct the respondents to continue to make
payment of salary including annual increment, incentive increment
and other service benefits.
Prayer in W.P.No.24003 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from insisting passing of
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for the petitioner appointed as
B.T.Assistant (Science) in 4th respondent school on 29.07.2011,
prior to G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department, dated
15.11.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to continue to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
make payment of salary including annual increment, incentive
increment and other service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
(in both W.Ps)
For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan
Nos.1 to 3 Government Advocate
(in both W.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
By consent of both the parties, these Writ Petitions are taken
up for final disposal.
2. In a series of decisions rendered by this Court, it has been
held that the requirement of passing Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)
for appointment of teachers to the posts of BT Assistants and
Secondary Grade Teachers, would be applicable only for such of
those teachers, who were appointed on and after 27.09.2011. The
rationale behind such decisions is that the pre-requirement of a TET
qualification, which was prescribed through G.O.Ms.No.181, School
Educational Department, dated 15.11.2011, was originally
introduced by notification dated 23.08.2010 and subsequently
amended on 27.09.2011. It is on this basis that the Courts have
held that the effective date for possession of TET as a Pre-
qualification, is from 27.09.2011. In other words, the teachers who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
were appointed prior to 27.09.2011, cannot be insisted for
possessing TET qualification, as prescribed by the NCTE. This ratio
has been laid down in a decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court
in the case of Mrs.D.Raja Malar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education and others, passed in
W.P(MD).Nos.8313, 8317 & 8319 of 2020 dated 30.07.2020,
as well as in the case of K.Priyanka Vs The District Educational
Officer and others passed in W.P(MD).No.17814 of 2020
dated 07.12.2020. The relevant portion of the order in D.Raja
Malar's case (supra) reads as follows:-
“11.The only controversy which arises in
this writ petition is, whether the reason cited in
the impugned order that, the petitioners should
have qualified with TET qualification, even though
they were appointed on 17.09.2010, 20.06.2011
and 20.06.2011 respectively and from that date,
their appointments have also been approved by
the 3rd respondent, for getting the benefit like
the annual increment, is hold good or not.
12. In this context, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has relied upon a
decision of the learned Judge of this Court
exactly on the same point made in a batch of writ
petitions in W.P(MD).Nos.5626 to 5630 of 2017
etc., dated 08.03.2019 in the matter of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
M.Maharani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep., by its
Secretary, Department of School Education and
others. In the said order, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon para No.10, which
reads thus.
'10.However, there is no cut off date
specified in the said G.O.Ms.No.181, with
regard to acquiring the qualification of pass
TET to continue in service as
B.T.Assistants/Secondary Grade Teachers,
who are working as such in the respondent
Schools. In this regard, a cursory glance
at Clause (5) of the notification dated
23.08.2010 and its amended notification
dated 29.07.2011 issued by the NCTE, the
contents of which are reproduced at
paragraph Nos.8.2 and 8.4 above, would
reveal that if the process of appointment of
teachers was initiated prior to the date of
notification by issuing advertisement, such
appointments have to be made in
accordance with NCTE (Determination of
Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of
Teachers in Schools) Regulations 2001,
there is no qualification prescribed with
regard to possession of TET certificate, for
appointment to the post of B.T.Assistant
and Secondary Grade Teachers. The
qualification of passing TET was first
introduced by the notification dated
23.08.2010 and it was amended vide
notification dated 27.09.2011 and the
teachers, who were appointed prior to that
date need not pass TET and even in the
case of the teachers who were appointed
after that date, if the advertisement to
initiate the process of appointment of
teachers was made prior to that date, then,
their appointments also can be in
accordance with the NCTE Regulations
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
2001 and they need not acquire the TET
qualification.'
13. From the reading of the said judgment,
it has become clear that the NCTE prescribed the
qualification of TET originally from 23.08.2010
and subsequently from 27.09.2011 by way of
notification. Therefore, the actual date, on
which, the said qualification become mandatory
is 27.09.2011. Therefore, those teachers, who
were appointed prior to 27.09.2011 cannot be
put against the said prescription of the NCTE and
this has been exactly decided by the learned
Judge in the said judgement, referred to above.
14. In the case of the petitioners, they
were appointed on 17.09.2010, 20.06.2011 and
20.06.2011 respectively in the sanctioned
vacancy as B.T.Assistant and Tamil Pandit at the
fifth respondent School and the said
appointments, having been considered, was
approved by the third respondent vide his
proceedings, dated 28.12.2011, 15.11.2011 and
15.11.2011 respectively, where it has been
specifically stated that, the petitioners were
appointed on 17.09.2010, 20.06.2011 and
20.06.2011 and approval was also given from
the date of their appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
15.Therefore, it has become quite clear
that, the appointment of the petitioners as on
17.09.2010, 20.06.2011 and 20.06.2011 having
been approved by the third respondent through
the said approval order, the applicability of the
prescription made by NCTE to have such
qualification, insofar as the petitioners are
concerned, cannot be made or applied.
Therefore, the said reason cited in the impugned
order by the third respondent, in the considered
opinion of this Court, may not hold good.
Therefore, on that reason, the petitioners service
benefit like annual increment cannot be denied.”
3. In the instant case, the petitioners herein were appointed
in the fourth respondent School on 15.06.2011 and 29.07.2011,
which is prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.08.2011,
which is prior to the crucial date of 27.09.2011, as held in the
aforesaid decisions. The petitioners' apprehension is that the
respondents are withholding their salaries on the ground that the
petitioners do not possess the TET qualification. Such an
apprehension is also ratified in the statement made by the
respondents in their counter affidavit. While that being so, by taking
into consideration of the fact that the petitioners had been
appointed by the fourth respondent School on 15.06.2011 &
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
29.07.2011, which is prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.181, School
Education Department, dated 15.11.2011, the petitioners shall be
entitled for the mandatory benefits as on the date of their
appointment.
4. In view of the above observations, there shall be a direction
to the second and third respondents herein to pay the salaries,
including any other annual increment and incentive increments,
which the petitioners may be entitled to, along with other service
benefits, atleast within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
5. These Writ Petitions stand allowed accordingly.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There
shall be no orders as to costs.
29.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
arb/DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
To
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Chengalpattu Education District,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Secretary,
Jaigopal Garodia National Higher Secondary School,
East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059.
5.The Chief Educational Officer,
Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School Campus,
Gengureddy Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
6.The District Educational Officer,
Chennai East, Chennai – 600 094.
7.The Secretary,
K.Ramiah Chetty ARC Girls Higher Secondary School,
New No.26 (Old No.38), Saivamuthiya Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
M.S.RAMESH,J.
Arb/DP
W.P.Nos.23999 & 24003 of 2019
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
