Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Cor on 30 November, 2021
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.10032 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
.vs.
The Correspondent,
Hyrathul Jamalia Higher Secondary School,
Paramakudi,
Ramnad District. : Respondent/Writ Petitioner
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.3029 of 2014, dated 09.12.2019.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.Vadivelu
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.]
This writ appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.3029 of 2014, dated 09.12.2019, 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 one teacher, namely, Mrs.M.Millath Gani as Graduate
Teacher on 01.12.2011. The District Educational Officer/4th appellant
herein, approved the appointment of the said teacher on 14.12.2011
itself. Subsequently, based on G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education (C2)
Department, dated 15.11.2021 issued by the Government, second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
respondent has been directed to instruct all the District Educational
Officers including the fourth respondent to cancel the orders of approval
of appointment 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 teacher, Mrs.M.Millath Gani, vide
order, dated 20.11.2013. Challenging the said order of the cancellation
passed by the fourth respondent, the writ petitioner/respondent school
filed a writ petition 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 P.Savarimuthi Maria George
Vs. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar
District and others [W.A.(MD)No.948 of 2018] and allowed the writ
petition and directed the respondents to continue to disburse the grant-in-
aid towards salary to the aforesaid teachers with arrears, if any, in
accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of that order. Now, challenging the said order passed by
this Court, dated 09.12.2019, the appellants/respondents filed the present
writ appeal before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
4.Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
school.
5.It is not in dispute that the respondent school is an aided
minority school and that the respondent school appointed one
Mrs.M.Millath Gani as Graduate Teacher and it is not in dispute that the
appointment of the said teacher was approved by the District Educational
Officer/4th appellant herein. Subsequently, since the said teacher did not
pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), her 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 Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the appellant is that since the said teacher did not
get through the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and she has not complied
with the Government directions, her appointment was subsequently
cancelled among other teachers about 499 teachers. The learned Single
Judge failed to consider the same and allowed the writ petition. Hence,
the appellants have preferred the present writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
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 petition,
in which, the relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
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 inconsistent with the
Judgment of the Constitution Bench in P.A. Inamdar -vs-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
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 26.02.2018 in W.A. (MD) No.
1090 of 2017)”
10.In view of the same, the writ appeal fails and the same stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[P.S.N.,J.] [P.V.,J.]
30.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
sji
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
sji
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.2142 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.10032 of 2021
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
