Madras High Court

K.Boobalan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 August, 2023

                                                                W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 04.08.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                     W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013
                             M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 (6 Nos.) & M.P.No.1 of 2014 ( 6 Nos.)

                     W.P.No.31967 of 2013 :-

                     K.Boobalan                                                   ...Petitioner

                                                         -Vs-

                     1. The State of Tamil Nadu
                        Rep by Secretary to Government,
                        School Educational Department,
                        Secretariat,
                        Chennai – 600 009.

                     2. The Director of School Education,
                        DPI Campus, College Road,
                        Chennai – 600 006.

                     3. The Chief Educational Officer,
                        Nagapattinam.

                     4. The District Educational Officer,
                        Myladudhurai.

                     5. The Secretary,
                        Ramakrishna Higher
                           Secondary School,
                        Godhandapuram.                                            ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.34116/D1/E4/2013 dated 07.11.2013 and subsequent proceeding issued by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.6760/A3/2013 dated 18.11.2013 and to quash the same.

In all W.Ps.

                                       For Petitioner     : Mr.M.Pari

                                       For Respondents
                                        For R1 to R4   : Mr.V.Veluchamy
                                                         Additional Government Pleader
                                             For R5    : No appearance

                                                   COMMON ORDER

All these writ petitions have been filed as against the order

dated 07.11.2013, passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.34116/

D1/E4/2013 and subsequent proceeding issued by the fourth respondent

in Na.Ka.Nos.6760 & 6761/A3/2013 dated 18.11.2013, thereby

cancelling the approval of appointment and terminate the service of the

petitioners.

2. All the petitioners were appointed as BT Assistant and their

appointments were also approved by the respondents. The petitioners are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

still continuing as B.T. Assistant in their respective schools. While being

so, as per the Section 23 sub Section (1) and (2) of the Central Act No.35

of 2009, any person possessing such minimum qualification as laid down

by an academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, by

notification, shall be eligible for appointment as teacher. Further where a

State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in

teacher education, or teachers possessing minimum qualification as laid

down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the

Central Government may, it if deems necessary, by notifications, relax

the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for

such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that

notifications.

3. Accordingly, National Council for Teacher Education

(NCTE) have been appointed as Academic authority and the said

authority have issued notification dated 23.08.2010, thereby indicates to

all the States to conduct Teachers Eligibility Test to a person to be

appointed as teacher in primary and upper primary level at Government,

local authority private aided and unaided schools and fixed minimum

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

qualification for a teacher. Therefore, the teachers eligibility test is

mandatory qualification for a person to be appointed as teacher apart

from the educational qualification prescribed under the Act.

4. Accordingly, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued

government order in G.O.(Ms).No.181, School Education (C2)

Department, dated 15.11.2011, and ordered that since the Academic

authority viz., National Council for Teacher Education has indicated to

all the States that the teachers, to be recruited in future for the elementary

segment, should have passed the teachers eligibility test to be conducted

by the appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed

by the National Council for Teacher Education. Therefore, it is

mandatory to pass the teachers eligibility test conducted by the Teachers

Recruitment Board for getting appointment as teachers in the government

schools.

5. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are appointed

during the year 2012. After the above Government Order came into

force, the impugned proceedings have been passed thereby cancelling the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

appointment of the petitioners and directed to be relieved from service.

According to the petitioners, the impugned orders have been passed

without providing any opportunity to the petitioners in violation of

principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ

petitions.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. In similar mater, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in

the batch of Writ Appeals in W.A.No.313 of 2022 etc., dated 02.06.2023

in the case of the Director of School Education & ors Vz.

M.Velayutham & anr., held that cut-off date to be fixed in

G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011 to pass the qualifying examination

viz., teachers eligibility test. Accordingly, those who were appointed as

teacher after the G.O., have to pass the said examination in accordance

with G.O. Further held that those who were appointed prior to

29.07.2011 are exempt from passing TET only for the purpose of

continuance in the post of secondary grade teacher or B.T. Assistant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

without promotional prospects. The relevant portion of the order is

extracted hereunder :-

“74. For the sake of clarity and ease of reference, the upshot of the above discussion is as under:

(a) Any teacher appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher or Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant prior to 29.07.2011 shall continue in service and also receive increments and incentives, even if they do not possess/acquire a pass in TET. At the same time, for future promotional prospects like promotion from secondary grade teacher to B.T. Assistant as well as for promotion to Headmasters, etc., irrespective of their dates of original appointment, they must necessarily possess TET, failing which they will not be eligible for promotion.

(b) Any appointment made to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher after 29.07.2011 must necessarily possess TET.

(c) Any appointment made to Graduate Teacher/BT Assistant, after 29.07.2011, whether by direct recruitment or promotion from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, or transfer, must necessarily possess TET. The principles laid down

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

in this judgment will not have application to minority schools, both aided and unaided as explained in paragraph no.71.1.

(d) The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service issued in GO (Ms.) No.13 School Education (S.E3(1)) Department dated 30.01.2020 insofar as it prescribes “a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)” only for direct recruitment for the post of BT Assistant and not for promotion thereto in Annexure-I (referred to in Rule 6) is struck down, thereby meaning that TET is mandatory/essential eligibility criterion for appointment to the post of BT Assistant even by promotion from Secondary Grade Teachers.

(e) The language employed in G.O. (Ms) No. 181 dated 15.11.2011 is to be read and understood to the effect that for continuance in service without promotional prospects, TET is not mandatory.”

8. In the case on hand, all the petitioners were appointed to the

post of B.T. Assistant in the year 2012. They were appointed after the

said government order came into force dated 15.11.2011. Therefore, they

must necessarily posses TET. In the light of the order passed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.31967 to 31971 & 31973 of 2013

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.313 of 2022 batch, this

Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the

respondents 2 & 4.

9. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall

be no order as to cost.

04.08.2023 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order